Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ a reality?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please actually present some evidence, rather than saying somebody else believed it to be true.

There is the fact of the Lord's Day. For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their sabbath doctrine. Then we find a group of early Christians who were Jews changing the day of worship from the seventh to the first day! What could account for their abandoning something to which they held to so tenaciously? Nothing other than such a monumental event as the resurrection of Christ from the dead, which took place on the first day of the week; His appearance to his disciples on the first day of the week; and the outpouring of His Spirit on the church at Pentecost on the first day of the week. So we read that it was on the first day of the week that the disciples of Jesus Christ met to worship Him.

There is the fact of Easter. This was aa replacement of the Jewish festival of the Passover. Why did the Jews who held the Passover to be the most significant event in the history of their nation abandon it in favour of the celebration of Easter, which was a festival among the Christains? The greeting was: "Christ is risen!" And the response: "Christ is risen indeed!" What other fact than the resurrection of Christ can explain the existance of the festival of Easter, which traces back to the time of the early church?

There is the fact of the Christian sacraments, which point not only to the death and suffering of Christ but also to His resurrection and power. These can be traced back to the very time of the death of Jesus Christ.

There is the fact of Christian art. In the catacombs of Rome, from the time of the persecution, we find carved into the walls representations of the resurrection of Christ as a paart of the earliest beliefs of hte Christians.

There is the fact of Christian hymnody. In the earliest days of the Christian church, hymns were sung of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Then there is the undeniable fact of the Christian Church. Many people don't make the connection between the Church and the Resurrection, but all scholars have. The Christian church is five times larger than the Roman Empire at its greatest extent. More than one billion three hundred million people this day profess to worship Jesus Christ as the living and risen Son of God. How did such an institution come into existance? As someone said: "The Grand Canyon was not formed by an Indian dragging a stick." Neither was an institution the size of the Christian Church brought to pass by the daydreams of idle dreamers in days gone by. It is known by all historians that the church can be traced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, the time of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Originally posted by dj2becker
There is the fact of the Lord's Day. For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their sabbath doctrine. Then we find a group of early Christians who were Jews changing the day of worship from the seventh to the first day! What could account for their abandoning something to which they held to so tenaciously? Nothing other than such a monumental eve ...[text shortened]... aced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, the time of the death and resurrection of Christ.

After reading all that , I reiterate :supply some evidence.

Originally posted by frogstomp
After reading all that , I reiterate :supply some evidence.

In other words you wll not accept any evidence...

Originally posted by dj2becker
In other words you wll not accept any evidence...

first you gotta show some , before you say that.

Originally posted by dj2becker
In other words you wll not accept any evidence...

try to keep it non-fallacious or 3rd ,4th or nth person. something tangible like am official record from the time in question, a letter something that a historian might use.

The question isn't what I believe or what anybody else believes either,,it's simply that you say you have "PROOF"

so show some.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Originally posted by Starrman

[b]No, since there is no proof Jesus rose from the dead, and his entire huan existence is also debateable.

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been more carefully examined than the evidence for any other fact of history! It has been weighed and considered by the greatest of scholars, among th ...[text shortened]... stimony of the Evangelists (1847; reprinted., Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker House, 1965), 28-30.[/i][/b]

I fail to see what skills a lawyer brings to the question of the resurrection? If he had been a scientist or a historian or a physicist or an anatomist, then I can see some relevance. But none from a lawyer.

Or perhaps he wanted to prosecute someone?

Originally posted by dj2becker
There is the fact of the Lord's Day. For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their sabbath doctrine. Then we find a group of early Christians who were Jews changing the day of worship from the seventh to the first day! What could account for their abandoning something to which they held to so tenaciously? Nothing other than such a monumental eve ...[text shortened]... aced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, the time of the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is the fact of the Lord's Day.

New religion, new day. Plus, the early Christians were probably persecuted even by their own people (Jews), so they found that they couldn't worship at the temples on the same days as the traditional Jews did, so they picked a new day. What day would be more sensible?

There is the fact of Easter.

This is the same thing as your first "fact."

There is the fact of the Christian sacraments

Christians believe in the ressurection of Christ, so a Christian sacrament does not prove anything.

There is the fact of Christian art.

Once again: it is Christian art. Of course it depicts the ressurection. That is what Christians believe, at least symbolically.

There is the fact of Christian hymnody. In the earliest days of the Christian church, hymns were sung of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Same thing.

Then there is the undeniable fact of the Christian Church.

And I would also point out the popularity of Communisim, reality TV, rave nightclubs, the pet rock, wearing baggy pants, coffee, spending way too much time on internet forums, etc. My point is that popularity is not proof of righteousness. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is often the one who spurns the popular path who is in the right.

Also, Christianity often spread by violent and devious means--through war, torture, persecution, politics, and the absorbtion of local heathen traditions and beliefs--not necessarily just because it was right.

... --- ...

It is also a fact that many early Christians did not believe in the Resurrection particulary the Gnostics.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Originally posted by Starrman

[b]No, since there is no proof Jesus rose from the dead, and his entire huan existence is also debateable.

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been more carefully examined than the evidence for any other fact of history! It has been weighed and considered by the greatest of scholars, among th ...[text shortened]... stimony of the Evangelists (1847; reprinted., Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker House, 1965), 28-30.[/i][/b]

And thats very nice. Well, it must be true if somoen from Harvard says so. By the way, who is this person Simon Greenleaf who numbers among great scholars. Should we have heard of him; is he up there with Plato, Descartes, Newton, Einstein and that bloke from the voyage of the Beagle?

Originally posted by dj2becker
There is the fact of the Lord's Day. For thousands of years the Hebrew people had held their sabbath doctrine. Then we find a group of early Christians who were Jews changing the day of worship from the seventh to the first day! What could account for their abandoning something to which they held to so tenaciously? Nothing other than such a monumental eve ...[text shortened]... aced back to the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 30, the time of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Are you suggesting that if I provide a list of things that changed the world from a Moslem
perspective, you would accept the veracity of Mohammed's ascension?

Nemesio

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
[b]There is the fact of the Lord's Day.

New religion, new day. Plus, the early Christians were probably persecuted even by their own people (Jews), so they found that they couldn't worship at the temples on the same days as the traditional Jews did, so they picked a new day. What day would be more sensible?

There is the fact of Easte ...[text shortened]... local heathen traditions and beliefs--not necessarily just because it was right.

... --- ...

It seems that you've missed the point.

Since a Christian church exists, we know it started somewhere and for some reason. It wasn't just imagined into being and then sustained on nothing. That doesn't happen. Or at least, if something without a real foundation does start up, it doesn't last very long.

The facts that bj refers to here, like anything historians know about from ancient days, must be actually explained in a reasonable, rational way. Only the actual contemporary resurrection of Christ can fully explain what occured next in history.

For example: If there was no resurrection, then there would be no reason for Christ's heretofore followers to worship in a way or in a place other than to continue worshipping with their fellow Jews. What would be sensible about picking Sunday if Christ had simply died and been buried on Friday?

You say that Christians believe in the resurrection so...........
Well, yeah, that's the point. They believed because they were there! There were witnesses.
We believe that Aristotle and Napolean and Ceasar existed and did what is said of them because those who were there tell us about it.

Most of your list of popular items demonstrate how most ideas do actually come and go. But I especially like this quote: It is often the one who spurns the popular path who is in the right.

I like this because it suggests that there is a 'right'. And that you (or anyone) can claim to accurately judge what is or is not right! Your statement suggests that you have been carefully monitoring many path-takers, and noting which of them are right. Very interesting.

I suggest that you apply that very careful, studious and serious ability to a real investigation of the claims of Christianity. So many people seem to be only trying to shore up their excuses by deriding the ability of someone else to build their case. That won't cut it in the end. Our conclusions must be right; too much is at stake.

For those who seriously want to see some good evidence supporting the resurrection, check out The Case For Christ by Lee Stroebel. Yes, another book, this one from a modern investigative journalist taking a serious look at the evidence, but if you are serious..........

Originally posted by chinking58
[b/]It seems that you've missed the point.

Since a Christian church exists, we know it started somewhere and for some reason. It wasn't just imagined into being and then sustained on nothing. That doesn't happen. Or at least, if something without a real foundation does start up, it doesn't last very long.

The facts that bj refers to here, like a ...[text shortened]... vestigative journalist taking a serious look at the evidence, but if you are serious..........
[/b]

It is a fallacious and rather silly argument to claim that because people believe something it must be true. The Greeks for thousands of years believed in Zeus and other Gods; does that make it true? Numerous examples of the same type could be given; the Earth being flat, etc.

A particular myth can cause people to change their religious practices; there are, again, numerous examples in ancient history where one religion supplemented another and people changed their practices.

If there was one book saying that Ceasar defeated the Gauls by bellowing a mighty roar at them, I assure you historians would not accept it. The argument that because the Bible claims that Jesus was resurrected that makes it a historical fact is just as baseless. Contemporary, non-Biblical writers make no mention of Jesus' supposed resurrection; do you think that might have been a rather important tidbit for them to overlook? Resurrections of heroes were a common myth in the ancient world; should we accept that Heracles went to Hades and back because it was written in ancient Greek texts and the ancient Greeks believed it and had religious practices to celebrate it?

http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html

Are the Gospels Mythical?

René Girard.


"From the earliest days of Christianity, the Gospels' resemblance to certain myths has been used as an argument against Christian faith. When pagan apologists for the official pantheism of the Roman empire denied that the death-and-resurrection myth of Jesus differed in any significant way from the myths of Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, Attis, etc., they failed to stem the rising Christian tide. In the last two hundred years, however, as anthropologists have discovered all over the world foundational myths that similarly resemble Jesus' Passion and Resurrection, the notion of Christianity as a myth seems at last to have taken hold-even among Christian believers."

Originally posted by ivanhoe

http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html

Are the Gospels Mythical?

René Girard.


"From the earliest days of Christianity, the Gospels' resemblance to certain myths has been used as an argument against ...[text shortened]... s at last to have taken hold-even among Christian believers."

Is this the only article you have ever read? I've read through it a couple of times now, and all it says is that the Gospels are seemingly dissimilar from other myths. However, they are also quite similar in other respects. I'm sure if the time was taken to compare any mythology at random with all others there can be something found in the first that does not mesh with the others. This dissimilarity does not make the myth true, only different.

Much can be gained by studying mythology, by studying both the similarities and the differences. This way we can learn a great deal about ourselves and our relationship to and with God. Saying that a mythology is different, however, is a far cry from deeming it historical truth.

... --- ...

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is a fallacious and rather silly argument to claim that because people believe something it must be true. The Greeks for thousands of years believed in Zeus and other Gods; does that make it true? Numerous examples of the same type could be given; the Earth being flat, etc.

A particular myth can cause people to change their religio ...[text shortened]... s and the ancient Greeks believed it and had religious practices to celebrate it?

You are right sir. The fact that some claim the Res. took place is not proof in itself. But an observer from afar, such as ourselves, may consider what is claimed and why it was claimed. Who claimed it? Who did or did not deny the claim? Why was the claim not debunked and disproved at the time?

We know millions of kids actually believe in Santa Clause, but we disregard that as a serious idea because we understand that kids are kids and are not credible witnesses. I don't know too much about the ancient Greeks, but did the man on the street actually believe in Zeus etc? Or did they simply use them as a way to handle the world around them? Furthermore, did their belief stand the test of time? And exposure to thinking people outside their culture?

Whatever people actually thought the earth was flat were simply ignorant until they learned otherwise. Every generation, I think, has had some ignorance removed by exploration and study.

What is one example of one religion supplementing another to the degree that Christianity has? Or better yet, an example of one religion fulfilling another's promise (remember that Christ claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, the one they were waiting for. Whereas the OT lamb's blood was given to 'cover' sin, The Lamb Of God came to 'take away the sin of the world'😉 in the way that Christianity fulfilled Judaism.

Historians have been studying the Bible for centuries and every time they think they've disproved its historical accuracy, they've later discovered their own mistaken conclusions. The actual merits of the particular book making a claim about Ceasar's bellow would have to be rated by a worthy historian. A historian who starts with a presupposition, such as 'miracles never occur' is not worthy of his title, because if they do, then they do, and he should report that fact. The merits of the Biblical account of any historical event it refers to have been well established.

The Case For Christ by Lee Stroebel is a very good start for any one looking for a serious look.