Political Crossfire Forums

[DwightEisenhower]

Before I begin, let me just state that I am in NO way trying to validate Jesus' Resurrection, that is a question for faith and faith alone. But I'm eager for a discussion....
....


History tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. History tells us that Jesus was executed. Therefore, there must have been a body. Christians of course believe in the Resurrection.

But how do nonbelievers explain the missing body?

The disciples stole or destroyed the body to convince people that Jesus was God

The most common explanation, and the most irrational one. What would the disciples have ever gained from faking Jesus' Resurrection? Power? History tells us that the Early Church underwent little but persecution. Wealth? History tells us that the Early Church lived mostly in relative poverty or at least did not obtain levels of extraordinary wealth. Reputation? Certainly the disciples did not want to become laughingstocks and be forced to admit their misplacement of trust....even though they became laughingstocks anyway.

The fact is, many many members of the early community of faith faced persecution and death. Many were given the chance to admit their incorrectness as an alternative to death, but they did not. Why would they have unwavering commitment to a cause they knew to be fake?

The Romans who executed him did something with the body

The early Church was a threat to Roman domination in the Middle East. The Romans, furthermore, saw the Church as a dangerous uprising, and certainly acknowledged that these people rallied behind Jesus' existance as God. If they had possession of the body, why would they not reveal the body and crush Christianity with a quick, effective blow?

The execution and/or Jesus were a hoax

There are many secular historical accounts of Jesus' existance as a person in history. I don't have links to them off hand; you're going to have to trust me here. If you'd like proof, I'll hunt them down later. From what I can remember, a few described Jesus as a "magician." Quite interesting. But consider this point moot until I find some sources.
....

The fact that all four Gospels, written independently of each other for the most part, detail the Resurrection in great and fairly similar detail offers some credibility to the story. And also the fact that the Early Church focused so heavily on a subject that nonbelievers claim was a hoax...if this were true, why would the Church leaders not focus upon something true?

Jesus was either a lunatic, the greatest con artist in history, or the Son of God. He could not con anyone after his death; there must be a good explanation for his body's disappearence. Let's discuss it.

[Snarf]

DwightEisenhower wrote: Before I begin, let me just state that I am in NO way trying to validate Jesus' Resurrection, that is a question for faith and faith alone. But I'm eager for a discussion....
....


History tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. History tells us that Jesus was executed. Therefore, there must have been a body. Christians of course believe in the Resurrection.

But how do nonbelievers explain the missing body?

The disciples stole or destroyed the body to convince people that Jesus was God

The most common explanation, and the most irrational one. What would the disciples have ever gained from faking Jesus' Resurrection? Power? History tells us that the Early Church underwent little but persecution. Wealth? History tells us that the Early Church lived mostly in relative poverty or at least did not obtain levels of extraordinary wealth. Reputation? Certainly the disciples did not want to become laughingstocks and be forced to admit their misplacement of trust....even though they became laughingstocks anyway.

The fact is, many many members of the early community of faith faced persecution and death. Many were given the chance to admit their incorrectness as an alternative to death, but they did not. Why would they have unwavering commitment to a cause they knew to be fake?

The Romans who executed him did something with the body

The early Church was a threat to Roman domination in the Middle East. The Romans, furthermore, saw the Church as a dangerous uprising, and certainly acknowledged that these people rallied behind Jesus' existance as God. If they had possession of the body, why would they not reveal the body and crush Christianity with a quick, effective blow?

The execution and/or Jesus were a hoax

There are many secular historical accounts of Jesus' existance as a person in history. I don't have links to them off hand; you're going to have to trust me here. If you'd like proof, I'll hunt them down later. From what I can remember, a few described Jesus as a "magician." Quite interesting. But consider this point moot until I find some sources.
....

The fact that all four Gospels, written independently of each other for the most part, detail the Resurrection in great and fairly similar detail offers some credibility to the story. And also the fact that the Early Church focused so heavily on a subject that nonbelievers claim was a hoax...if this were true, why would the Church leaders not focus upon something true?

Jesus was either a lunatic, the greatest con artist in history, or the Son of God. He could not con anyone after his death; there must be a good explanation for his body's disappearence. Let's discuss it.
Think of it this way. Do you believe that raising someone from the dead is an important act of Godly power? If so, then why does only one Gospel, the last written, even bother to mention it? It seems that Jesus lived; it's His life and His death that are myth.

Each of the Gospels BTW, were based on the first. The last is quite a bit different as it was written long after his death. That much is well known...

[JLChrista]

First of all there is no proof Jesus as described in the bible actually existed. Not that there weren't a few Jesus's running around, but no proof has ever been found that confirms "JesusChrist's" existence. Therefore your point to this atheist is moot. I don't have to concern myself with his body after death till I have proof he existed in the first place AND then in the second place, I would have to have proof that the tales of him in the NT which were written between 70-100 years later, were accurate not just legend. Since his birth and life aren't for sure, his supposed body after death isn't for my concern.

[DwightEisenhower]

JLChrista wrote: First of all there is no proof Jesus as described in the bible actually existed. Not that there weren't a few Jesus's running around, but no proof has ever been found that confirms "JesusChrist's" existence. Therefore your point to this atheist is moot. I don't have to concern myself with his body after death till I have proof he existed in the first place AND then in the second place, I would have to have proof that the tales of him in the NT which were written between 70-100 years later, were accurate not just legend. Since his birth and life aren't for sure, his supposed body after death isn't for my concern.

Then how did the New Testament stories begin? Why did the authors write them if their works supposidely did the convincing?

There are at least 10 Gospels in addition to the Canonical Gospels, each independently written, each at least confirming Jesus' existance.

[DwightEisenhower]

Snarf wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: Before I begin, let me just state that I am in NO way trying to validate Jesus' Resurrection, that is a question for faith and faith alone. But I'm eager for a discussion....
....


History tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. History tells us that Jesus was executed. Therefore, there must have been a body. Christians of course believe in the Resurrection.

But how do nonbelievers explain the missing body?

The disciples stole or destroyed the body to convince people that Jesus was God

The most common explanation, and the most irrational one. What would the disciples have ever gained from faking Jesus' Resurrection? Power? History tells us that the Early Church underwent little but persecution. Wealth? History tells us that the Early Church lived mostly in relative poverty or at least did not obtain levels of extraordinary wealth. Reputation? Certainly the disciples did not want to become laughingstocks and be forced to admit their misplacement of trust....even though they became laughingstocks anyway.

The fact is, many many members of the early community of faith faced persecution and death. Many were given the chance to admit their incorrectness as an alternative to death, but they did not. Why would they have unwavering commitment to a cause they knew to be fake?

The Romans who executed him did something with the body

The early Church was a threat to Roman domination in the Middle East. The Romans, furthermore, saw the Church as a dangerous uprising, and certainly acknowledged that these people rallied behind Jesus' existance as God. If they had possession of the body, why would they not reveal the body and crush Christianity with a quick, effective blow?

The execution and/or Jesus were a hoax

There are many secular historical accounts of Jesus' existance as a person in history. I don't have links to them off hand; you're going to have to trust me here. If you'd like proof, I'll hunt them down later. From what I can remember, a few described Jesus as a "magician." Quite interesting. But consider this point moot until I find some sources.
....

The fact that all four Gospels, written independently of each other for the most part, detail the Resurrection in great and fairly similar detail offers some credibility to the story. And also the fact that the Early Church focused so heavily on a subject that nonbelievers claim was a hoax...if this were true, why would the Church leaders not focus upon something true?

Jesus was either a lunatic, the greatest con artist in history, or the Son of God. He could not con anyone after his death; there must be a good explanation for his body's disappearence. Let's discuss it.
Think of it this way. Do you believe that raising someone from the dead is an important act of Godly power? If so, then why does only one Gospel, the last written, even bother to mention it? It seems that Jesus lived; it's His life and His death that are myth.

Each of the Gospels BTW, were based on the first. The last is quite a bit different as it was written long after his death. That much is well known...

That is true, but the differences between the Gospels imply that the authors had their own wave of information to contribute. Not all parts of Mark appear in Matthew, and Matthew in Luke. The fact that the Resurrection appears in all illustrates its importance, if not credibility.

[Clara Listensprechen]

First of all, you begin with a false premise:

DwightEisenhower wrote: Before I begin, let me just state that I am in NO way trying to validate Jesus' Resurrection, that is a question for faith and faith alone. But I'm eager for a discussion....
....


History tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. History tells us that Jesus was executed. Therefore, there must have been a body. Christians of course believe in the Resurrection.

But how do nonbelievers explain the missing body?

History of record holds no record of a Jesus ever existing, so your premise that "History tells us" is wrong outta the gate. The body was missing because it was never proven to exist in the first place. What was never there can't be "missing".

[Clara Listensprechen]

JLChrista wrote: First of all there is no proof Jesus as described in the bible actually existed. Not that there weren't a few Jesus's running around, but no proof has ever been found that confirms "JesusChrist's" existence. Therefore your point to this atheist is moot. I don't have to concern myself with his body after death till I have proof he existed in the first place AND then in the second place, I would have to have proof that the tales of him in the NT which were written between 70-100 years later, were accurate not just legend. Since his birth and life aren't for sure, his supposed body after death isn't for my concern.

The believer tends to point to Roman historian Josephus for "proving" historical accuracy of this, that, and the other. There is an instance where Josephus makes a reference to a crucifixion and talking to some big wig to have the thing stopped. The order to stop is was given, and the result....? Well, it's like this: Christians quote Josephus only when it's convenient, and this li'l tidbit is inconvenient to their resurrection tall tale. And it doesn't name names, really.

But this li'l passage explains why Muslims have been fighting Hindus for control of Kashmir.

How 'bout THEM apples?! The tidbit in Josephus' writings goes on to say that the crucifixion was halted too late for two of three guys, but one guy survived. The legend takes off from there, accounting for the trip of this one guy to the Kashmere area where he lived to be an old man and was buried there. Muslims believe this was Jesus, and his actual tomb is in Kashmere.

[connermt]

DwightEisenhower wrote: Before I begin, let me just state that I am in NO way trying to validate Jesus' Resurrection, that is a question for faith and faith alone. But I'm eager for a discussion....
....


History tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. History tells us that Jesus was executed. Therefore, there must have been a body. Christians of course believe in the Resurrection.

But how do nonbelievers explain the missing body?

The disciples stole or destroyed the body to convince people that Jesus was God

The most common explanation, and the most irrational one. What would the disciples have ever gained from faking Jesus' Resurrection? Power? History tells us that the Early Church underwent little but persecution. Wealth? History tells us that the Early Church lived mostly in relative poverty or at least did not obtain levels of extraordinary wealth. Reputation? Certainly the disciples did not want to become laughingstocks and be forced to admit their misplacement of trust....even though they became laughingstocks anyway.

The fact is, many many members of the early community of faith faced persecution and death. Many were given the chance to admit their incorrectness as an alternative to death, but they did not. Why would they have unwavering commitment to a cause they knew to be fake?

The Romans who executed him did something with the body

The early Church was a threat to Roman domination in the Middle East. The Romans, furthermore, saw the Church as a dangerous uprising, and certainly acknowledged that these people rallied behind Jesus' existance as God. If they had possession of the body, why would they not reveal the body and crush Christianity with a quick, effective blow?

The execution and/or Jesus were a hoax

There are many secular historical accounts of Jesus' existance as a person in history. I don't have links to them off hand; you're going to have to trust me here. If you'd like proof, I'll hunt them down later. From what I can remember, a few described Jesus as a "magician." Quite interesting. But consider this point moot until I find some sources.
....

The fact that all four Gospels, written independently of each other for the most part, detail the Resurrection in great and fairly similar detail offers some credibility to the story. And also the fact that the Early Church focused so heavily on a subject that nonbelievers claim was a hoax...if this were true, why would the Church leaders not focus upon something true?

Jesus was either a lunatic, the greatest con artist in history, or the Son of God. He could not con anyone after his death; there must be a good explanation for his body's disappearence. Let's discuss it.

Why do we need a proof of his body to say that he existed or not? Wouldn't there be other 'proofs'?

[thefranzkafkafront]

DwightEisenhower wrote: Before I begin, let me just state that I am in NO way trying to validate Jesus' Resurrection, that is a question for faith and faith alone. But I'm eager for a discussion....
....


History tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. History tells us that Jesus was executed. Therefore, there must have been a body. Christians of course believe in the Resurrection.

But how do nonbelievers explain the missing body?


Im afraid you've made your first well not mistake, but error there.

When talking to some one who dosent belive in the divinity of jesus such as myself, your also going to have to realise that I don't consider the gospel to be biograptical either.

Egro, how do we know the begining of the easter story actually happened, essentially all our sources on it all stem from early christian oral tradition.

There are no roman or jewish sources from the time commenting on either the passion or ressurection.

[Showboat]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: DwightEisenhower wrote: Before I begin, let me just state that I am in NO way trying to validate Jesus' Resurrection, that is a question for faith and faith alone. But I'm eager for a discussion....
....


History tells us that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. History tells us that Jesus was executed. Therefore, there must have been a body. Christians of course believe in the Resurrection.

But how do nonbelievers explain the missing body?


Im afraid you've made your first well not mistake, but error there.

When talking to some one who dosent belive in the divinity of jesus such as myself, your also going to have to realise that I don't consider the gospel to be biograptical either.

Egro, how do we know the begining of the easter story actually happened, essentially all our sources on it all stem from early christian oral tradition.

There are no roman or jewish sources from the time commenting on either the passion or ressurection.

Josephus, who has been mentioned before, was around not long after the time of Jesus. He say's Jesus was crucified. I beleive Jesus was definately a historical figure...The Son of God? Thats a whole different matter.

In response to the original post:

If Jesus died on the cross and was placed in Joseph's tomb and the apostles and early Christians made up the story about him rising from the dead, making a shrine of his tomb would be stupid. It's most likely died on the cross, was entombed and his tomb "forgotten" about. There's no body for Julius Caesar but it doesn't stop anyone believing in his existance. So nonbelievers can easily handle a missing body of JC.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: There are no roman or Jewish sources from the time commenting on either the passion or resurrection.

There are several, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish Roman historian comes to mind first.

From Antiquities of the Jews.
Quote: (63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html
A lot of people claim this was added later, but that is not factual, and can be disproven easily

There are also Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, etc.

And every Gospel mentions the resurrection.

Matthew 28
Quote: 1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."

Mark 16
Quote: 1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" 4 Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, `He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.' " 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Luke 24
Quote: 1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 "He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." 8 And they remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. 11 But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.

John 20
Quote: 11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away." 16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, `I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' " 18 Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her.


Now what does this mean? Surely one might not accept these accounts as true.

But it does show that people who do not want you to believe them are willing to lie and hope you don't take the time to check it out their statements for yourself.

Clearly the resurrection is mentioned in all four Gospels, and clearly there exists independent corroboration of the resurrection account from non Christian historical writings. This may not be enough to make anyone believe the account, but it darn sure shows that folks who wish to dispute the Bible are willing to blatantly lie to achieve their ends.

Think about that for awhile.

[Todd D.]

In my opinion, Josephus's writings on Jesus have clearly been at the very least edited by some later Christian editors in order to bolster their case. It's highly unlikely that such a high ranking Jewish authority would not only refer to Jesus as "The Christ" (as opposed to "They called him the Christ" or "His followers felt that he was the Christ"), but also aknowledge the Resurrection, something that to the best of my knowledge the Jews uniformly reject.

However, I do believe it to be an edit, not a hoax. I think that Josephus very clearly did refer to Jesus of Nazareth as being a real person, having lived around the time period given and clearly Christians still being around during his time period. I just think that it's fairly obvious that his posts were embelished to present a more Pro-Christian slant.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Cap'n, my point is that Josephuswas writing around 71 ad at the earliest. But thats 40-ish years after the actual event by which time christianity was becoming an influencial lil' movment especially amugst the jews (they were just about to or just had been kicked out from the synagog's I can't quite rember).

All of the gospels share the same common source for tradition, Jesus after all only had one group of disiples, and all of these sorces state a singal person as witness to the body being missing.

Lets not geting into the ressurection becuase, then we have to enter into the short and long mark versions, and authorship of the gospels.

My point is thats it a belife that jesus rose from the dead and left his tomb, not a fact so the orginal poster's premise was a bit faulty, as a non-christian would have belived the tomb was empty in the first place.

[Random Evil Guy]

how do you know jesus, the historical one, even existed?

is this another 'the bible is true, because the bible says it is' thread...?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Random Evil Guy wrote: how do you know jesus, the historical one, even existed?

is this another 'the bible is true, because the bible says it is' thread...?

Oh no jesus existed, there was most certainly a very charismatic and educated jewish 'prophet' eqsue figure named joshua benjoeseph and he was probally killed by the romans.

If this wasunt so the relgion just woulnt have sprung up.

Theres a lot of mythos beside that mind.

[Random Evil Guy]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: how do you know jesus, the historical one, even existed?

is this another 'the bible is true, because the bible says it is' thread...?

Oh no jesus existed, there was most certainly a very charismatic and educated jewish 'prophet' eqsue figure named joshua benjoeseph and he was probally killed by the romans.

If this wasunt so the relgion just woulnt have sprung up.

Theres a lot of mythos beside that mind.

maybe. maybe not. there was probably someone waling around called jesus or something like that, but that doesn't mean the historical jesus existed. the one depicted in the bible(without all the magic)...

[thefranzkafkafront]

Random Evil Guy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: how do you know jesus, the historical one, even existed?

is this another 'the bible is true, because the bible says it is' thread...?

Oh no jesus existed, there was most certainly a very charismatic and educated jewish 'prophet' eqsue figure named joshua benjoeseph and he was probally killed by the romans.

If this wasunt so the relgion just woulnt have sprung up.

Theres a lot of mythos beside that mind.

maybe. maybe not. there was probably someone waling around called jesus or something like that, but that doesn't mean the historical jesus existed. the one depicted in the bible(without all the magic)...

I think the jesus depicted in the jeffersonian bible is probally quite close to the reality.

[LetsGetReal]

Yes, because Jefferson is good at taking other peoples work making it his own and claiming he's a Genius. He was very intellectual but most, if not all his ideas can be found from another source. :roll:

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: It's highly unlikely that such a high ranking Jewish authority would not only refer to Jesus as "The Christ"

Not really, a lot of folks in the area thought that it might be. The question was up in the air. Most Christians were Jewish. The fact is, at that time they were waiting for the Christ. And he never said Y'shua was the Christ, his comment was "if he could even be called a man."

And he didn't say anything other Romans didn't say. Essentially the comment is the same as any other Roman source at the time.

Anyway,
My point in all of this is to show that many non-Christian writers commented about the affair. And all of the Gospels clearly record the resurrection.

Some of the comments on this thread claimed that no outside mention is ever made of the incident. And that three of the Gospels didn't even mention it. These statements are not factual.

My point here, in this thread, is not to convince people that the resurrection happened. But to point out that folks who do not believe it are not above lying to promote their particular point of view.

Understand? .

If that point escapes you, then so be it.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Some of the comments on this thread claimed that no outside mention is ever made of the incident. And that three of the Gospels didn't even mention it. These statements are not factual.

My point here, in this thread, is not to convince people that the resurrection happened. But to point out that folks who do not believe it are not above lying to promote their particular point of view.

A very good point. Especially in debate, many people are willing to lie and hope that nobody calls them on their lie in order to convince others that they are right. I myself have never really understood that theory, since I find debate to be more about the quest for knowledge than proving that your dick is bigger than someone else's. However, to single out one side would be a bit dishonest. If indeed the Josephus text saying, and I directly quote "He was [the] Christ" is a later edit by a Christian source, then citing Josephus as an outside source would be just as dishonest as saying that only one Gospel mentions the Resurrection (though not nearly as idiotic).