Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by InLove

You know what? I had never heard of “layering” when I came up with this way of talking about the Bible a few years ago. It was just the way I described my own experience. Then one day, I was doing some reading (I don’t think it was in CR), and discovered that it was widely used terminology.

This kind of thing happens to me all the time. There is no such thing as an original idea.

[InLove]

Nothing new under the sun...

[fizzylogic]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Incidentally, she did not consider this question worthy of an answer. I wonder if perhaps she saw that it makes no sense to believe as she does but her faith is too insecure to admit it.


The reason I am not asking her is that she got promoted to assistent manager and I got banned from the board right at the time when I pushed this question. These events may not be related but the circumstantial evidence is considerably high. Anyway, I then got the idea to post my question here.

I have just come across this post, and I am amazed! This question was posted by 'Citygirl', not Ruby. The 'she' (to whom 'Citygirl' was extremely rude) is not a fundamentalist, and does not hold the view that the Bible is inerrant.

Ruby, on your own website you welcome 'Citygirl' as a new member. Where is your integrity?

Fizzylogic

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by fizzylogic

I have just come across this post, and I am amazed! This question was posted by 'Citygirl', not Ruby. The 'she' (to whom 'Citygirl' was extremely rude) is not a fundamentalist, and does not hold the view that the Bible is inerrant.

Ruby, on your own website you welcome 'Citygirl' as a new member. Where is your integrity?

Fizzylogic

Welcome to CR. Fizzylogic...I have a question for you...where are your manners? Hello my name is...might be an appropriate start.

This is CR, not some other forum. No need to bring grievance here, eh?

Fresh start. Hi, I'm Q. Welcome to CR. Hope you find your stay here interesting and enlightening. Look forward to your contributions and thoughts.

v/r

Q

[RubySera_Martin]

Thanks, Q.

My apologies for bringing dirty linen from another forum. If someone with the power to do so wants to sanitize it to prevent further offense, they have my permission. Otherwise, "what I have written I have written," to quote Pontius Pilate in the NT.

Ruby

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Thanks, Q.

My apologies for bringing dirty linen from another forum. If someone with the power to do so wants to sanitize it to prevent further offense, they have my permission. Otherwise, "what I have written I have written," to quote Pontius Pilate in the NT.

Ruby

As Luna points out, this is a neat and sweet place...all people start out fresh and refreshing.

v/r

Q

[fizzylogic]

I'm sorry, Q. I was just stunned, to put it mildly, for a moment. I really am very sorry. I enjoy reading the posts here in CR, and I'm learning a lot from them, as I do elsewhere. I hope you will accept my apology, and that I can continue to read and perhaps contribute to the discussions.

Maybe not on this thread, though!

Fizz

[flowperson]

Fear not Fizz,...we all transgress occasionally. That's the largest part of being human...the learning part. Welcome !

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by fizzylogic

I'm sorry, Q. I was just stunned, to put it mildly, for a moment. I really am very sorry. I enjoy reading the posts here in CR, and I'm learning a lot from them, as I do elsewhere. I hope you will accept my apology, and that I can continue to read and perhaps contribute to the discussions.

Maybe not on this thread, though!

Fizz

Again, welcome.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by fizzylogic

I'm sorry, Q. I was just stunned, to put it mildly, for a moment. I really am very sorry. I enjoy reading the posts here in CR, and I'm learning a lot from them, as I do elsewhere. I hope you will accept my apology, and that I can continue to read and perhaps contribute to the discussions.

Maybe not on this thread, though!

Fizz

Hello fizzylogic, welcome to CR.

A fresh start for everyone sounds like an excellent idea to me. Looking forward to reading your posts.

cheers,
lunamoth

[leastone]

Dear Readers and Writers,

I have read through the whole thread in its entirety for the first time this evening, and while there is this whiff of clean start/fresh air, I might take up discussing the topic again, that asks if the resurrection of Jesus Christ was an historical event.

Perhaps I should explain how my thinking on both Jesus' birth and His resurrection developed, since it followed completely different routes with totally different outcomes: the one I accept completely, and the other I have come to reject.

Throughout my life, I had always simply accepted the story of the virgin birth, or rather, perhaps as a man, dared not go there---such a sacred space; such a sacred event---so I did not even consider it, or question it: almost like a neutral acceptance. But then, quite unexpectedly, the very first thread I came upon when entering the Christianity Today forum (early this year) was on this very topic. Reading the posts there by a man called Bella Lantos just pushed me into a place where I had no choice but to reject the "virgin" birth as an "embellishment." (The only post I ever placed on that forum stated my new persuasion, and pondered the dilemma of maintaining integrity as a Christian if you keep on discarding what others still cling to. Mr. Lantos kindly contacted me privately and encouraged me, explaining his own lonely path in search for truth.)

Now, as for the resurrection, that I thought about a lot. Throughout the years, though I accepted it "by faith," there was always a lingering uncertainty, that I dared not admit to myself as doubt. There was room for "fantasy" and like everybody else, I looked at the texts narrating the resurrection, the discrepancies, the interpretations, etc. and could never quite rest with a certainty about it. I longed to understand it better.

I say this now in retrospect, for I did not realize how great my doubt was until the day I received the revelation that made it forever sure in my mind that it took place, as testified of by many witnesses. A number of years ago I was reading a book---and unfortunately cannot recall the name of the author---written by someone who apparently had a similar battle with accepting the resurrection as truth. But his struggle eventually brought him an answer, and when I read it, the proof, or evidence, for an actual resurrection became as clear as daylight.

Please bear in mind that people hearing the first reports of the resurrection did not have the mindset to immediately demand scientific proof of the possibility of such an event, nor did they have dubious "Scriptural" texts to consider to be the "Word," and if the "Word" says so, it must be so. No, they only had the sincere reports of witnesses. (They were not on trail, so don't project 20th Century Fox stuff unto them.)

However, it is not their verbal accounts that is the final evidence.

One would have to ask, "What made a despondent bunch of losers, who had just lost everything by having their leader killed; men who actually went back to where they came from; who returned to their fishing business---what made them again leave everything to go, (without Him enchanting them with his physical presence, power, and charisma), and face persecution and death unflinchingly, uncompromisingly? Something changed them!

Was it his death? No. Was it a sudden, widespread conviction that he died on a cross for everybody's sin that lifted their spirits and had them charge out with the good news? Of course not.

No. It was his resurrection. And, changed lives is the evidence. It is the undeniable evidence---something powerful was at work that drove these men, a conviction so strong that they would die for it, such was the certainty that they had. And it was this resurrected Christ, who identified himself to Saul as Jesus, who radically changed a persecutor into an apostle of the Lord.

Of course, you are free to believe that they were all a bunch of liars, but of such integrity, that they would rather die than lose face..

Respectfully,

Learner.

[wil]

Originally Posted by leastone

D... it took place, as testified of by many witnesses....
Of course, you are free to believe that they were all a bunch of liars, but of such integrity, that they would rather die than lose face..

It is not I who can define what leads one to martyrdom, as I don't understand the millions that have gone before us doing just that...in the name of much less than a resurected Jesus....so that to me doesn't classify as evidence...a meaninful story to be sure, but evidence no...

Now not to say I need evidence in any of this, I just have a difference of belief in this matter...and I'm not saying my understanding won't change over time...as you indicated these are two things that just never resonated.

But if we can discuss your proof...many witnesses and bunch of liars. As I understand it we are fairly in agreement that we have Mark, and then Luke and Matthew were copied from Mark and Q (and L&M) but these are all accounts not firmly attributed to anyone present but written decades later by potentially unknown writers. So I don't see where we have many, we have a few, who have written, and rewritten what was written and stories that were told around the campfire for years on end, being embellished and improved as the response warranted. As for the bunch of liars...aren't we all storytellers providing words for affect to prove our point, to take part in the discussion? I don't categorize them as liars...believers, yes...but liars...no they took part in the process, raising awareness...and yes many of them died wicked deaths as their belief indicated they would get their reward....

[flowperson]

As I stated earlier in the thread, resurrection scenarios were standard fare in myths about middle eastern divinities. Not to say that this makes the stories about Jesus' return to life necessarily lies. But as wil stated, these stories were told and retold many, many times before they were written down and eventually cannonized.

Such is the evolution of mythology, which is the most powerful cultural transmitter of basic truths into the future for all societies. So one may state that myths are ultimate truth regarding what we all come to believe about the past when factual evidence is otherwise absent. The Bible is an intricately layered and interwoven set of literary stories that have served western culture for a very long time, and have brought us a sense of order and belief about our origins. But mostly, they are likely figurative and not factual/literal.

And in certain instances, large portions of the original writings were not included. It is estimated by scholars that the book of Mark is missing one third to one half of its original content, which could have had a profound effect upon what finally appeared in the story and its messages to hearers/readers. Since Mark was reputedly secretary to Simon Peter in Rome, this could have had great effects upon the early church and its direction. Fragments of some of this information have been uncovered by scholars and analyzed.

The late Morton Smith's book, Jesus the Magician, comes to mind in this regard. Smith found his fragment of a portion of the "lost" Mark on the back of a codex cover in an ancient monastery library in the middle east. Even this small piece of the "lost" story could have profound effects upon our understanding of what may have happened at Gethsemanie the night that the "authorities" arrested Jesus.

Now, this all boils down to belief. Belief that either the Bible is inerrant, that is, is based upon factual evidence; or, that it is a compendium of well-composed historical myths embodying some portions of "truth". Research by many people over the centuries has shown that the former is not likely to be the case. The alternative is to choose what to believe of what is in the Bible and incorporate that into our individual and collective spiritual world views. In this post modern era, I believe that it is increasingly difficult for thinking people to follow the former path as compared with the latter.

flow....

[RubySera_Martin]

Leastone, thank you for sharing so deeply. I can see your heart is in it and that your belief is based on more than someone's authority. I think that is true faith or true religion, as James calls it. I firmly believe that whoever wrote the resurrection and virgin birth and other miracle stories was just as sincere and honest in what they said.

However, as Wil says, the fact that they gave their lives for their faith is not evidence of anything other than that they believed in the cause for which they suffered and died. The same can be said of the hundreds of young Russians who were martyred in the 19th century in the name of socialism. It seems to me that people who go to war and put their lives on the line for their country it might also be called martyrdom.

No matter what it's called we have people volunteering to suffer and die if required for many purposes other than their religion.

[leastone]

I understand what y'all are saying to me. Thank you.

I would, however, point to the fact, as confirmed by some here, that Jesus' teachings were not really new, and therefore could not be the prime motivation that made the wannabe martyrs so zealous.

And if it were not the teachings, or the death, what was it?

Just a memory of a person?

And if it were just a massive con job, or very successful (sales) presentation, I am sure that any Madison Avenue image consultancy would have all its efforts based on a careful study of the modus operandi of those first disciples.

Respectfully,

Learner.

P.S. Sure, people die for all kinds of causes, but these are normally temporary, in flux. The Christian cause apparently came to stay, and is still here, along with the ever present persecution (in some countries). There are living witnesses carrying the scars of their torture under persecution, and I believe them---I do not have to wait a hundred years for somebody to write down their stories (correctly), or accept it only if CBS has video footage of it. Besides, Christian persecution rarely, if ever, came as the result of zealots tackling, and waging war against, the establishment. Rather, it was the establishment seeking to destroy it, no matter where it fled, or where it hid.