Jesus Lives or Christianity Dies

1 Corinthians 15:14, 17 "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.... And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."

1 Corinthians 15:19, 20, 22 "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead ... even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Romans 4:24, 25 "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

Jesus Lives, Yesterday, Today and Forever!

Glory to the Most High God!

To join the Celebration go to http://www.JesusLives.com .

Bless You!

Hi all!

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!


G'night

yqek rvpjadwmk xtuclae yjaebrtln sfkvztb selckqnma wiqaxoprv

yqek rvpjadwmk xtuclae yjaebrtln sfkvztb selckqnma wiqaxoprv

yqek rvpjadwmk xtuclae yjaebrtln sfkvztb selckqnma wiqaxoprv

Faith overrides evidence and Jesus is truth.

For all of you who don't believe, I thank the Bishop for getting you all at least to think about this whole idea of a Jesus. In addition, for those who don't believe, I do agree with you on the point that if Jesus is a hoax, we at best are deluded, but if it is true?? I am praying for you all to accept or deny, for He has given you that ability, now that is pretty unique wouldn't you say.

My thanks to you all for engaging.

HAN writes 'Mathew 28:17 'some doubted', within the context of that report of the disciples meeting Jesus, does not refer to disbelieving in the resurrection of Jesus, He was amongst them! It refers to whether He should be worshipped, to the Jew there is but one God worthy of worship.'

CARR
Even after seeing Jesus raised from the dead, and after Jesus had allegedly given proofs that he was the one God of monotheistic Judaism, the disciples doubted that he was God.

Why didn't they have the simple faith of the thief on the cross, who believed in Jesus on the basis of no evidence of any resurrection whatsoever?

Of course, this just illustrates the gullibility of Christians who believe that people who spent 3 years with Jesus and had personally been given the power to raise the dead had less faith than people who had not spent 3 years with Jesus.

There is no doubt that Paul believed Jesus lived on after death. He says so. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that Jesus became a spirit.

HAN writes
' there is nothing said about leaving a physical body and raised a spirit'

PAUL
'The first man Adam became a created being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'.

Paul's typology was meant to imply to the Corinthians that we will share in the nature of Jesus's resurrection and also become a spirit.

So Han was simply lying when he claimed there is nothing said about being raised a spirit. Paul says exactly that. Jesus became a spirit.

Let's nail Han's other lie. Nothing said about leaving the earthly body.

PAUL
2 Corinthians 5
1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

DESTROYED not saved. Clearly Paul is talking about moving from one dwelling to another.

Which implies leaving one building ie leaving our earthly body.

This is why Paul asks in Romans 7:24 'Who will rescue me from this body of death?'

According to Paul, it is necessary to be rescued from our present body. Why? If we are never going to leave it, according to Han?

Paul thinks we should be rescued from our present body because the earthly body will be *destroyed*, not saved.

Basically, if you want to know what Paul believes, don't ask Han. Read Pauls letters instead.

"Why among other cults and philosophies competing in the Greco-Roman world that Christianity succeeded and outstripped all others? Why did it succeed despite getting more severe opposition than any others? Why did succeed though it has no influential backers in high places but consisted of mainly the poor and slave? How did it succeed so completely that it forced the most powerful state in history to come to term with it and then outlive the very empire that sought to up root it? It is clear that at the very beginning of Christianity there must have occurred a vast release of energy – perhaps unequaled in history – without it the future course of Christianity is inexplicable" - Kenneth Scott Latourette, Yale Historian.

So Carr,

Would you agree that Paul believed Jesus resurrected? (1Cor.15:12-19)

And if so, then did Paul believe that Jesus has a new body which is imperishable, a spiritual body? (v.35-44)

As long as there is an afterlife, a body would be good, especially if there is the "next version" for this perishable body...

A general comment about interpretation of what is reported in the Gospels and Paul's letters. Interpretation of of verses should be done within the context of the Biblical Text within which the verse(s) is contained. Then there is the social context in this case first century Judaism being one as well as the Greco-Roman world. Resurrection was not believed by all Jews - the Sadduces did not.
Mathew 28:17 'some doubted', within the context of that report of the disciples meeting Jesus, does not refer to disbelieving in the resurrection of Jesus, He was amongst them! It refers to whether He should be worshipped, to the Jew there is but one God worthy of worship. The verb more common meaning is 'hesitated' although it can mean doubt. In the context of the text 'hesitated' would be a more accurate translation.
"I just look at modern-day Christians like NT Wright and know that this must be false, as Wright has not spent 3 years with Jesus, witnessing people being raised from the dead, nor has Wright been given the power to raise the dead himself, and he has more faith (allegedly) than people who dropped all to follow Jesus.
These Bible stories are just silly, and modern day Christians are living proof why.”
The conclusion does not follow from the previous statement, it is just an assertion based on your metaphysical premises. May I quote what Jesus said to doubting Thomas:"Have you trusted because you have seen me? How blessed are those who do not see, but trust anyway"
Paul had no doubt of the resurrection of Jesus and resurrection in general. In 1 Corinthinan 15
Paul wrote at length about the resurrection of the body. Paul was not denying the resurrection of the physical body. Paul talked about physical bodies and heavenly bodies. He used the analogy of a seed being sown, dying and coming alive as wheat or whatever (depending on the type of seed).
We are sown a physical body, perishable but raised a heavenly body, imperishable enlivened by the Spirit. The physical body is raised transformed, there is nothing said about leaving a physical body and raised a spirit (?ghostly, amorphous,intangible, ethereal). Again interpretation has to be done in context. It is not appropriate to quote verses to fit one's conclusion. Conclusion should be the end of logical arguments from proper reading of the text.

Paul's belief was that it was in the very nature of flesh to be destroyed.

A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his flesh, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7-8

Once more, Paul scoffs at the idea that flesh will be resurrected and have eternal life. The nature of flesh is that it will be destroyed and brings destruction with it.

HAN
'However, when they met the risen Jesus they became convinced of the reality,...'

MATTHEW 28:17 'some of them doubted'

CARR
Even the authors of the New Testament knew they had to spin away the fact that nobody had heard of 11 disciples preaching a resurrection.

Paul certainly never mentions any such thing.

And he was there.

Han has to rely on anonymous works, not primary sources like Paul's letters.

But even Acts says the resurrection did not transform the disciples. They had to do something else.

Of course, the Gospels are way all over the place on this.

The disciples were supposedly frightened when Jesus was arrested, yet they make an appearance at the crucifixion right in front of the noses of the Roman soldiers ????

HAN
'After all resurrection of the body is not a natural occurence of humanity. It is, therefore, not surprising that the disciples were disbelieving, they were human.'

CARR
They were also people who had been personally given the power to raise the dead (Matthew 10)

They had seen many people raised from the dead, and had also seen Moses return from the dead, never to die again.

They had been fanatical followers of somebody who had prophesied that he would rise from the dead.

How can the story of disbelieving disciples make sense, when I just have to glance at modern Christians like NT Wright who declares himself sure, on one-thousandth of the evidence allegedly given to people who had spent 3 years with Jesus?

And early Christian converts in Corinth simply scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise corpses.

And Paul has to write to the church in Thessalonika to tell them not to grieve as though the dead were lost.

Why did the Thessalonians worry? Because some of them were dying and the rest had no reason to think that corpses would rise.

And Paul says flat-out that the risen Jesus became a spirit, and the typology means he expects other Christians to also become spirits.

And Paul wanted to be rescued from his body of death. Romans 7:24

He knew the body would not be rescued.

I just want to make a few responses to what have been posted:
Soja has made a credible response to many of the negative, unbeleving, knee jeck responses of what are not unexpected responses to Bishop Wright posting re Jesus resurrection. After all resurrection of the body is not a natural occurence of humanity. It is, therefore, not surprising that the disciples were disbelieving, they were human. However, when they met the risen Jesus they became convinced of the reality, and the best example is that of Thomas. In Acts of the Apostle we read of the transformation of the fearful, disconcerted and doublful bunch of apostles into a group of confident, fearless proclaimer of the risen Messiah. The doubters became believers. I cannot really follow the logic of Carr's argument except as a rhetoric.
The Gospels and Paul do not speak of a 'spritual' resurrection. Jesus' body is a transformed body nevertheless it has a physicality but not our current physicality.
There are several comments that the resurrection story is made up, mythological (untrue sense)and hallucinatory. If you read it critically, they do not read like fairy tales but creditable reports. The women who went to the tomb did not recognise Jesus (they weren't expecting him alive!), nor did the disciples on the Eramus road and the appearances were not hallucinations (one recognises hallucinatory figures). The disciples were described as disbelieving initially. If I am writing a mythology I won't write like that.
The Christian Narrative is a just story that the 'chuch' developed. But it begs the question why did the 'church' occur? Why would a group of Jews in the context of first century situation with their leader sentenced to death by the Romans with the connivance of the aristocratic religious Jewish hierachy as a criminal want to proclaim a risen Messiah that it is part of God's plan for a renewed people of God and the calling in of the Gentiles as well? It will only ask for trouble and persecution which did occurred.

SOJA has more faith than people who spent three years with Jesus, and who were personally given the power to raise the dead.

Matthew 28:17 says that some of them 'doubted.'

How? When modern day Christians do not doubt!

However, Soja has not one word written by somebody who spent 3 years with Jesus.

The best primary source he has is Paul, who says flat-out that the resurrected Jesus became a spirit, and who reports that some early converts to Jesus-worship simply scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse, and who never reports one single Christian as saying that the corpse of Jesus left the ground.

When I read some of the uninformed, prejudiced and quite frankly unpleasant diatribes posted above I find it quite sad.

Many have just trotted out an alternative dogma which is equally subjective for their part or, because they have not had an original thought, the latest views of someone else.

My gosh, just suppose that Bp Wright is correct, aren't all of you negative nellies taking a huge risk? At the end time will you hedge your bets?

Steven Carr (Ref post 10 April 2007 12:22 PM):

You wrote, “I just look at modern-day Christians like NT Wright and know that this must be false, as Wright has not spent 3 years with Jesus, witnessing people being raised from the dead, nor has Wright been given the power to raise the dead himself, and he has more faith (allegedly) than people who dropped all to follow Jesus.
These Bible stories are just silly, and modern day Christians are living proof why.”

Carr, you are free to be an atheist and believe or disbelieve anything you like. If you are convinced that the Bible stories are just silly, then you are under no obligation to believe them. No Christian would deny you your basic human right, even the God we believe in doesn’t. Faith in God is both a gift and a free choice. But to think that Christians who do believe and base their lives based on that belief are silly - that is merely your personal opinion, isn’t it? Your perception of other people’s faith is merely your subjective perception, not the absolute truth. To claim that your subjective perception is the absolute truth would be more than silly, don’t you think?

As to why Christians believe in spite of the fact we have not spent three years with Jesus: we take the Apostles at their word, those who actually spent time with Jesus. From the Bible we believe what Jesus said, “But when He (meaning the Holy Spirit) the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Rob,

I agree with your general concern. I don't understand why so many people are tepid to explore their own personal faith, while relying almost solely on the faith, words and guidance or others. When talking to such a person, I have found that there often isn't much depth below the surface.

Maybe one has to be secure in his/her own faith before real dialogue is possible? I'm not sure. It seems like constructive dialogue with the intention of learning is the exception, not the rule on most anon. forum boards whenever dealing with the subject of faith.

Side note to those following last weeks Colson thread: I did NOT have to change my name this week thanks to my friend from India checking in just in the nick of time.

Regards

' The disciples of Jesus were no less doubting of His claim of Resurrection than many tend to be today. The Bible narrates the fears and doubts of His disciples and how it took some appearances and convincing on the part of Jesus to prove that He was indeed raised from the dead.'

CARR
Modern day Christians like Bishop Tom are living proof that this must be false.

The disciples doubted, even after they had personally been given the power to raise the dead, (Matthew 10) and had seen Moses return from the dead, never to die again.

Matthew 28:17 says some of them doubted, even after having proofs supplied by the Son of God Himself.

I just look at modern-day Christians like NT Wright and know that this must be false, as Wright has not spent 3 years with Jesus, witnessing people being raised from the dead, nor has Wright been given the power to raise the dead himself, and he has more faith (allegedly) than people who dropped all to follow Jesus.

These Bible stories are just silly, and modern day Christians are living proof why.

Hello all - if you're interested, check out my response to Soja's thoughts on "Tradition" on the Colson or Marty threads.

Dear Bishop Wright

A belated Happy Easter to you from breathtakingly beautiful Sydney in Australia! Jesus Christ is risen, Alleluia! Personally of course I think it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Easter in our hearts everyday, so for me today is just as much Easter as it was on Easter Sunday, so it is not belated Easter wishes after all.

As to the question: “If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?”

I do agree with you Bishop Wright that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is fundamental to Christianity, for otherwise Jesus would be just another good man and teacher like Socrates.

As to answering the hypothetical question, I would like to cross the bridge only after I have reached it, so for me the question is premature at this stage. For the following reasons I have no reason to consider that the possibility of finding the remains of Jesus exist:

1. One cannot simultaneously claim that Jesus Christ was an exemplary moral teacher (for all non-Christians are willing to admit at least that much about Jesus) who walked his talk and at the same time imply that He was a liar when He claimed to be the Messiah, and His many references to the Jewish prophesies which His life fulfilled, and the prediction of his death and Resurrection. Why did Jesus have to lie about who He was? He was after all aware of His coming fate, namely death on the cross, for His claim of being Messiah. He had only a band of simple men as His followers. If He was an ordinary man there was no way for Him to have known that in centuries to come Christianity would help shape a powerful civilisation. Jesus lived among the poor and outcastes of his society like a poor man. In other words, Jesus stood to gain nothing in a materialistic worldly sense at all. Jesus did not offer His disciples carnal pleasures and worldly wealth for following Him. He offered them just the opposite. Jesus wanted His disciples to take up the cross and follow Him, be prepared to be persecuted and die if need be, and to concentrate on gathering and storing up spiritual wealth, rather than amass worldly wealth and measure their success in terms of access to unlimited carnal pleasures. Considering all that, why did Jesus have to lie - to seek cheap popularity among the poor social outcastes He chose to associate with? Weren’t His miracles proof enough that He was no ordinary man? How could He as an ordinary human being have predicted His mode of death and Resurrection? Why would He invite death by crucifixion by claiming to be the Messiah?

2. The crucifixion of Jesus was a highly controversial issue in His time. It must be remembered that Pontius Pilate was hard pressed to find a loophole in Roman law to justify meting out the worst possible punishment to an innocent man. Even the worst of men try to build at least a false case before they do something they know to be wrong. And yet Pilate did no more than wash his hands off the guilt, making it a point to emphasise that he was merely giving in to the wishes of the Jewish people themselves (who claimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy according to their Scripture, which demanded the ultimate punishment which they could not mete out themselves), thus covering his back and appeasing his guilt in one stroke, for there was nothing to make a false case about. Considering the seriousness of the claim of Jesus and the consequences He had to face as a result of it, the credibility of the religious Jewish and secular Roman authorities were at stake. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have done everything in their power to discredit the claims of Jesus and His followers. We know from the Bible that the Roman authorities took extra care to guard the tomb of Jesus to prevent any theft of the corpse. In other words, in the best interests of both the Jewish and Roman authorities they would have gladly produced the bodily remains of Jesus, especially after the disciples began to circulate reports that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead. The logical question is: Why didn’t they produce the evidence of the bodily remains of Jesus? The simple logical answer is: They couldn’t!

3. During the days of His ministry before crucifixion, Jesus performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. A Hindu sage and yogi would have no difficulty in believing that Jesus could have performed miracles, because miracles are wrought by those who have acquired the powers of Siddhi. (Jesus was after all accused by the Jews of performing miracles with the power of the Devil, which proves that miracles in themselves need not have a divine origin and need not create good fruits.) But raising a man from the dead is a unique power that is beyond the power of a human being even with psychic powers, and hence the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead is what marks the power of Jesus different from all those who have acquired psychic powers through spiritual practice. Jesus was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, one with the Father, through whom all things were made. (Refer John’s Gospel)

4. The disciples of Jesus were no less doubting of His claim of Resurrection than many tend to be today. The Bible narrates the fears and doubts of His disciples and how it took some appearances and convincing on the part of Jesus to prove that He was indeed raised from the dead. The classic example is that of Apostle Thomas. He is known as Doubting Thomas, but I refer to him as Thomas, the Scientific Apostle. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it.” (John 20:25) And like a true scientist Thomas was willing to believe, once he was shown the proof (unlike many who say they will not believe no matter what anyone says and they refer to their attitude as that of a scientific rational mind). Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my GOD.” (John 20:27,28) The Bible account describes Jesus as having had a physical dimension which could eat and drink with His disciples, but His risen body was spiritual at the same time because He could walk through closed doors and disappear suddenly, and at times appeared in a form that wasn’t immediately recognisable.

5. It is important to recall that three wise men from the East came to worship Jesus when He was born. It was the confirmation of a universal awareness that God was going to reveal Himself in a unique way. The Bhagavad Gita which was completed around that time had already developed the theme of a personal God. The Jewish Prophets after all had prophesied the coming of the Messiah for centuries. Tradition has it that Apostle Thomas, (the Scientific Apostle in my definition), came to Kerala, India in 52 AD to evangelise to the small Jewish community that lived there at the time, and ended up converting many high caste Hindus, including rigid, ultra-orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins (like my ancestors), who practised the oldest Vedic religion. Without a powerfully convincing message it was highly unlikely that Apostle Thomas could have persuaded a Nambudiri Brahmin to accept Christianity and give up the privileges of belonging to an exclusive and powerful Hindu community, considering immediate ex-communication was the rule, with loss of means to earn a living in ways open only to the Hindu Nambudiri Brahmin: e.g. By practising Ayurveda taught only as a family profession, offering priestly services which brought very high income, being advisors to rulers or being priestly lords themselves, or serving the Nambudiri community in various ways. I have been asked on what grounds I believe that Apostle Thomas came to Kerala in 52 AD and converted among others, my Hindu ancestors when there is no historical proof of it. In India many traditions are orally transmitted without being recorded historically. Hence I have every reason to believe that a whole state does not invent a tradition and pass it on faithfully for centuries without a trace of truth to it, considering the birthplace of Jesus was far away and the account of His life and death and role as Messiah could not have been invented in Kerala. I await proof that traditions such as mine (the Syro-Malabar Catholic) cannot exist based on historical facts and such traditions have no validity if the events do not find a mention in history textbooks stemming from that period, especially since history writing was not a part of Indian culture at the time.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14678a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Church

Until such time that the mortal remains of Jesus Christ is unearthed/found and it is proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt, with DNA verification, that it is indeed the bodily remains of Jesus, I will continue to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and base my Christian faith on it. I see no reason whatsoever to raise the question now, as to whether it would affect my faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God is risen! Alleluia!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

What N.T. Wright said sounds good to me. It gives me hope.

Of course, the earliest church which we know of to discuss this issue was the one in Corinth.

There, converts to Jesus-worship were split into two groups.

One which scoffed at any after life for the dead (except Jesus), because they knew that God did not raise corpses from the dead

And another which took part in baptisms for the dead, implying that they thought the dead already had a reward, although obviously their corpses were still in the ground.

Paul makes reference to eating just like the Gospels do! He tells the Corinthians that God will destroy both stomach and food.

Perhaps Paul had not heard of imperishable bodies eating food.

Earlier it was asked:

"Can't we see the resurrection as a powerful symbol for the power of God to triumph in our world? Can't we see God's characteristics embodied in the narratives about Jesus's life -- love, healing, devotion, etc. -- and see the resurrection as displaying our hope for achieving that? Why do we need the physical resurrection to have actually taken place?"

As Bishop Wright has said elsewhere, if the gospel writters meant us to read these stories as metaphorical they have a very odd and counterproductive way of going about it. There is so much insistence on the physicality of Jesus' resurrection (the empty tomb, the handling of his body and wounds, the eatting of the fish, etc.)that it does too much violence to the text to read in them anything but bodily resurrection. This is what the early church proclaimed, shocking and foolish as it sounds. Of corse the meaning of the Resurrection and the hope behind it, as explained above, I believe to be true. I also believe that this truth was powerfully demonstrated by God, in history, when he rose Jesus Christ from the dead.

Ghostbuster,

Sorry I missed your 2nd post on April 5th.

Seems the conclusion from a few people is that the affect on Christianity depends on the belief of the individual to start with. I would concur with that.

I think much of religion is based on one’s interpretation. I actually think that is healthy. I guess a general concern I have with religion some people (many?) just take the word of other people (past and present) or look at literal written text rather than interpreting and/or explore for themselves.

You also posted on the 6th that “you will stumble across some very interesting conversation and learn about all kinds of diverse viewpoints if you dig around a little bit.”

This is a great point for everyone to keep in mind. Isn’t learning from one another where the collective gets the benefit? If you are on this site to blast others I think you are missing the point.

Gatogordo -

Who is G-d?

Any relation to God?

If so, why not say so?

GATAGORDO,

As noted previously,

There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations (if you take the literal word of the NT i.e. talking to the "ugly wingy thingie" called Satan), has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress Gentiles and various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of/belief in "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

most of you people are tragically doomed. doomed, that is, if you continue in your ignorant, godless unbelief in G-d and his literally resurrected Christ.
of course, your tragic blindness comes as no surprise to a Christian: the God-inspired apostle Paul, Peter (and, of course, Jesus himself) predicted your number would increase in the last days. not only this, but that your hatred of God and his saints would increase as well. so as you continue to ridicule the only G-d, his Christ, and Christ's saints, you only call judgment on yourselves, as each of your hateful insults give you a sweet advantage in your race to the bottom.
Of course, most of you have already pronounced judgment on G-d and his saints, having been utterly indoctrinated by today's seemingly refreshing, demon-inspired anti-religion religion. many of you believe that G-d is an illusion; Jesus, if he existed, was simply a great moral teacher; only lunatics believe in G-d or "gods" or some laughable variation on these themes. most of you believe yourselves to have grown up, rejecting superstitious drivel for the far more sophisticated, far more tolerant-though-ironically-anti-religious spirit of the age. Sadly for many of you, even if G-d himself were to appear in his glory, your hearts and minds are so empty--or rather, i should say, so filled with hate for G-d and love for yourselves and your human-centered, laughable, blasphemous, suicidal, fabulous intellectual extravagances, that you would probably try to explain him away to his face! hahahaha! that is, of course, if he allows you a chance to see and speak to him.
so let me state this in no uncertain terms: every one of us is a hater of G-d, a blasphemer, a law-breaker. Your unbelief in G-d is simply an index of your spiritual condition. you all crave the praise of your fellow man; i'm sure many of you would fall to pieces without it. which, again, is simply an index of how far gone you are.
You strive (in vain) to justify your unbelief, you agonize over the prospect of death; with the losses and gains in your trivial lives. and while you continue to wave the banner of tolerance and other enlightenment virtues, your souls are tragically, tragically, tragically lost.
But there is hope for you!! Jesus the Christ has been raised from the dead. The evil that all of you are guilty of perpetrating against G-d and your fellow human, has been dealt with on the cross of Jesus Christ. G-d has raised him from the dead so that you may be saved! Why do you insist on twisting this glorious truth in favor of living a godless, meaningless, ultimately condemned existence? why do you feel the need to justify your godless belief when, in fact, the incomprehensible G-d has acted on your behalf? Eh? So I'll leave you by urging you to reconsider your tragic, meaningless, godless intellectual arrogance and simply fall at Jesus' feet! Eh? Consider Jesus, crucified for your sins, and raised from the dead so that you all can be remade as image-bearing children of the everlasting G-d...

CARR,

Sorry I responded to your post. You have an interesting take on early Christianity.

ANONYMOUS claims

'Read the post again - there's a big difference between coming back to life (same body that will eventually die again) and resurrection (renewed body that will never decay or die again.)'

CARR
A distinction utterly lost on early Christian fathers who proclaimed that the resurrection of Lazarus was an excellent model of a resurrection.

ANONYMOUS
The reason why the disciples were in disbelief of the resurrection of Jesus was because there was no evidence in 1st century Judaism of a thought process that involved the Messiah dying on the cross at the hands of the Romans and still being victorious through a bodily resurrection.

CARR
Liar.

Jesus Himself supposedly prophesied exactly that.

How can there be no evidence that 1st century Jews thought like that, when Jesus taught 1st century Jews to think like that?

ANOYMOUS
Regarding the appearence of Moses (& Elijah) in the transfiguration accounts, this is not about them coming back from the dead as you suggest.

CARR
Is this a joke?

Moses died. He appears again.

How can this not be a comeback from the dead, never to die again?

ANOYNMOUS
To have someone (Jesus) be resurrected before that time, was a new thought and shocking to those first disciples.

CARR
Then why did many Jews think Jesus was Jeremiah returned from the dead?

You have to admire the skill with which Christians trash the New Testament accounts of what Jews believed. I couldn't do it better myself.....

CARR: You post,

"So you have to be utterly gullible to believe claims that the disciples had seen all that, been given the power to raise the dead, heard Jesus prophesy that he would return from the dead, and then still believe the NT stories of disciples not accepting claims of Jesus returning from the dead."

Read the post again - there's a big difference between coming back to life (same body that will eventually die again) and resurrection (renewed body that will never decay or die again.)

The reason why the disciples were in disbelief of the resurrection of Jesus was because there was no evidence in 1st century Judaism of a thought process that involved the Messiah dying on the cross at the hands of the Romans and still being victorious through a bodily resurrection. The resurrection showed them that Jesus was the Suffering Servant/Messiah (King) but no one expected it to happen this way. Resurrection does not mean "coming back to life again." Resurrection means a new body that will never be subject to death or decay again.

The general resurrection of the dead (which was a popular belief and hope of 1st century Judaism)was to come at the end of the age of death and suffering not in the middle of it. To have someone (Jesus) be resurrected before that time, was a new thought and shocking to those first disciples.

Regarding the appearence of Moses (& Elijah) in the transfiguration accounts, this is not about them coming back from the dead as you suggest. Jesus himself was transfigured (but wasn't going from death to life in this story.) This was more like a window that God was providing some of the disciples to see that Jesus was fulfilling the work of Moses and Elijah from the Hebrew scriptures.

I'm not sure what you mean by equating "no faith" with "not being real." That would mean many of the Psalmists "are not real" since many of the Psalms are prayers of doubt and uncertainty. I guess that would mean that I'm not real since I have doubts about my faith from time to time.

To turn this line of thought around, what makes me believe that the Christian faith is real is that the disciples (see "The Book of Acts" & the Epistles for many examples of faith) have a strong belief that Jesus actually rose again (was resurrected.)

BLUE AND WHITE
Sheryl - You made the point:

"I do not believe ANYBODY ever came back from the dead."

Actually, according to the resurrection accounts found in the four Gospels, the first eye-witnesses of the empty tomb would have agreed with you. It was just as shocking to them as it is to me (and evidently to you as well!)

CARR
Is this a joke?

These people had already seen MOSES come back from the dead, never to die again.

I'm not even Jewish, but I can't begin to describe to you how my life would be turned upside down if I believed I had seen Moses (of all people) return from the dead.

And the New Testament wants us to swallow the idea that Jews were hardly affected at all by seeing Moses return from the dead, and were still stunned when their Lord and Saviour did what he himself had prophesied would happen.

I'm sorry, but nobody in their right minds can buy the story of the disciples.

According to the New Testament, 1st century Judaism was rife with rumours of people returning from the dead. Even Herod is alleged to have believed that Jesus was John the Baptist returned from the dead.

And the disciples had allegedly seen many people returned from the dead (not just Moses)

They had even personally been given the power to raise the dead themselves (Matthew 10)

So you have to be utterly gullible to believe claims that the disciples had seen all that, been given the power to raise the dead, heard Jesus prophesy that he would return from the dead, and then still believe the NT stories of disciples not accepting claims of Jesus returning from the dead.

Why, even Matthew 28:17 says some of the apostles doubted *even after they had been given proofs by the Son of God Himself*

What is this?

Let us turn to the real world.

Religious leaders have prophesied the end of the world (just as Jesus allegedly prophesies his rising from the dead).

What did the followers of those religious leaders do? They go on to a hill and waited for the end of the world.

Disicples and followers have faith. That is why they are disciples and followers.

The disicples in the New Testament had no faith. That is why they are not real.

They had allegedly seen Moses return from the dead, never to die again.

Still they had no faith.

All I can say is - get real. That would not happen,

Catlas,

This thread is kids play. It gets way nastier than this in here :) I was also a little taken aback my first time on here too noting the name was, you know, "On Faith".

A bunch of people moralizing their right to hate this/that group of people based on the "fact" that they are idiots and hated me first... Maybe it will end some day when enough people decide to break the chains of the never ending cycle.

That said, you will stumble across some very interesting conversation and learn about all kinds of diverse viewpoints if you dig around a little bit.

Regards

Sheryl - how can people believe such things?

- Because they continue to be reassured by people they trust the most that they are true.

- They are threatened with eternal damnation if they don't believe.

- It's the "in" thing -- Most people in their culture believe, or feign belief.

Catlas - please consider that some of the comments just sound "hateful" because you're not used to hearing them. I've heard some pretty hateful things from Christians here - for instance, "God loves you and is going to send you to hell forever if you don't believe in him."

Sheryl - You made the point:

"I do not believe ANYBODY ever came back from the dead."

Actually, according to the resurrection accounts found in the four Gospels, the first eye-witnesses of the empty tomb would have agreed with you. It was just as shocking to them as it is to me (and evidently to you as well!)

Before dismissing the Christian faith altogether which at the center of it has the good news of the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth which for Christians means that God has defeated sin and death and God's inbreaking kingdom of love and justice is breaking in even in the present moment, have you seen the Christian faith in the context of the larger story of God's covenant with the people of Israel?

Without that larger framework, the Christian story, surprising as it may be, may look very confusing, strange, and disjointed. If you see the event of Jesus' resurrection as the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Genesis 12 & 15) to rescue the world from sin and death since God had created the world and called it "good" (Genesis 1) it might make a little more sense.

The other challenge that we have is the bias in our post-enlightenment world which denies God's presence and activity in the world. Being open to God's presence in the midst of ordinary events is one step closer to seeing the possibility of God doing something as awesome as raising someone from the dead (Jesus.)

Regarding your comment about people seeing visitations, etc., I know what you mean. I have my suspicions too! But, I have also experienced the living presence of Christ through the Sacraments, not always because I have emotionally felt Him and had "warm fuzzies" but because Christ has promised that he would be present through ordinary elements like bread (Holy Communion) and water (baptism.) It's not magic. It's faith/promise.

Wow...regardless of your belief system...in a culture where tolerance is the highest of all virtures...what I read here is hateful comments, that do more than reflect an opposing opinion, they are full of venom. The Bishop has only reiterated what his faith has taught for 2 millenia. You can disagree with someones faith but when you become towards them it is obviously no longer an agreement to disagree but shades of biggotry coming through.

I do not believe ANYBODY ever came back from the dead. I do believe that someday, far in the future, libraries will have on their bookshelves, in addition to Roman, Greek, and Egyptian mythology, CHRISTIAN mythology.

I've never understood how some otherwise intelligent people can believe in the literal presence of the body and blood of Christ in communion. There is no such thing as "magic", and communion is based on pagan practices, as are so many other rituals. Jesus was a good preacher/teacher, but divine? I think not...I don't even think he himself actually claimed to be; his words have been twisted to "fit" what Christians WANT him to be.

Then we have the countless visitations of Mary! I'd better not get into that, as she's knocking on my door right now...oh my heavens, it's Our Lady of Avon!

Anonymous might well be right that such views were slipping into Platoism, etc.

But Paul said Jesus became a spirit, and it was Paul who said 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God'.

It was Paul who described his Jewish beliefs prior to his conversion as 'garbage'.

It was Paul who asked to be rescued from his 'body of death' (Romans 7:24)

And it was early converts to Jesus-worship who scoffed at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse. Paul calls these people '... enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge— because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift'.

These people denied that corpses could rise and Paul praised them to the skies as good Christians.

Steven:

You Post -

"The earliest Christians believed Jesus was still alive, but that his body had been left behind."

That's slipping into Platoism, Gnosticism, & Dualism (Enlightenment Style.) 1st century Judaism would not have seen it that way as told by the Gospel writers or told through oral stories as it was before being developed into the Gospel tradition.

Resurrection means that Jesus' body was renewed just as all of creation will be ultimately renewed when Jesus returns a 2nd time. Renewed in the sense that God was able to resurrected the Jesus' body to take on the characteristics of the properties of God's new creation. (Granted, we can't ascertain what this new body is exactly like but they do a wonderful job of helping us to celebrate the mystery - a mystery that doesn't involve a left behind body, but a renewed one.)

I agree with Dr. Wright that if Jesus' body was not renewed (resurrected) that this would not have given the early Christians any reason to continue forming as a movement within Judaism. Sure, they probably would have taken comfort in knowing that Jesus' body was now a spirit and living on, but not in the sense of the Messianic Age coming forward into the present through Jesus.

I'm well aware of scholars who disagree with this assessment, but just wanted to chime in.

The earliest Christians believed Jesus was still alive, but that his body had been left behind.

The earliest reference to the resurrection is in 1 Cor. 15. There we learn that the Corinthians accepted the resurrection of Jesus, but still disbelieved that a dead body could rise.

This is impossible to explain, if they had been taught that Jesus dead body had risen. After all, modern Christians have no problem with the idea that God can raise dead bodies, because they have heard stories of how the body of Jesus was raised.

The Corinthians worry is easy to explain if they believed that Jesus was a god. Jesus had been a spirit before he became a human , and became a spirit again after he died. Gods can do that. However, we are not gods, and so the Corinthians wondered how we could follow Jesus , when our bodies , like the body of Jesus, would stay in the ground.

The Corinthians knew that God could breathe life into dead matter. God had breathed life into clay and created Adam as a living person. So if they believed God could make dead matter live, why did they believe God would choose not to make their dead bodies alive?

They must have had good evidence that God had not made dead matter alive in the case of the resurrection. They must have had good evidence that the dead body of Jesus had not been made alive. Only this explains their wondering how they would be resurrected, as it appeared to them that God did not want to make dead bodies live again.

So far this is speculation, although reasonable speculation. If the Corinthians believed God could make dead matter live, and had heard stories of the dead bodies of Jesus, Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus etc, being made alive, how could they doubt that God would make their dead bodies live again? Answer. They had not heard these stories, and had good evidence that a resurrection did *not* involve a dead body being made alive.

We have to turn to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul answers the objections of the Corinthians.

Paul calls the Corinthians idiots for wondering how dead bodies would be raised. And he immediately stresses that dead bodies are dead. ‘You fools! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed.’

If Paul thought the Corinthians were idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, when it was child’s play for God to raise dead bodies, he would have told them so. He could have used such passages as Ezekiel 37, or talked about how God breathed life into dead matter to make Adam.

Instead, he thinks the Corinthians are idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, as they have totally missed the point about a resurrection.

Dead bodies will not be raised. Instead, we will get a new body, made of spirit.

The Corinthians were as idiotic for wondering how dead bodies would be raised in the resurrection, as somebody would be idiotic for wondering whether we still have to take our library books back after the resurrection.

Such questions were irrelevant, which is why Paul never answers the questions of how corpses could get back missing limbs, or how a corpse destroyed by fire could be reconstituted from smoke and ash etc.

Paul goes so far as to contrast , Adam, with Jesus. ‘The first Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’

The Corinthians were idiots for not realising that we would follow Jesus and leave our dead bodies behind. We are made from the dust of the earth, but like the resurrected Jesus, we will be made from heavenly material.

The whole chapter only makes sense when we take seriously Paul’s view that it is idiotic to wonder how a dead body could be raised. It won’t be raised. It is a non-problem. Paul says clearly ‘You do not plant the body that will be’, and talks about different kinds of bodies. Paul says there is first the natural body and then the spiritual body. The Corinthians presently have their natural bodies, and then they will have spiritual bodies.

Here is an analogy for how Paul writes. If you wonder how a magician can produce an egg from your ear, after you have seen him crack the egg open, then you are an idiot for not realising that there are two eggs. Paul writes the same way.

Why wonder how a dead body can be transformed into a resurrected body, when there are two bodies? In 1 Cor. 15, Paul stresses how there are different bodies made of different materials. Why stress that there are different bodies, if he is trying to tell us how the magician put the egg back together again?

English translations of 1 Corinthians 15 often mask Paul’s idea that after our natural body has died, we will get a body made of spirit. Just like Jesus, we will become ‘a life-giving spirit.’ People of that time believed that celestial things were made of entirely different substances to earthly things. Paul shares that view and emphasises it in 1 Corinthians 15. This makes no sense if he is supposedly teaching the Corinthains that their resurrected bodies would be made from flesh and blood, which is what the Gospels claim Jesus resurrected body was made of.

It does make sense if Paul is teaching that the resurrected body would not be made from the flesh and blood of our earthly bodies.

Paul is very explicit in 2 Corinthians 5 that we will leave this present body behind and receive a heavenly body. A new body to replace the old body. He often uses a clothing analogy. At the resurrection we will get a new set of clothes.

This means that the old set of clothes will be discarded.

The earliest reference to the resurrection, Paul’s writings, clearly indicate that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus flesh and blood body rose from the grave.

Karen, you ask, “given that you question the historical authenticity of the NT despite the multiple early copies, do you also dispute the authenticity of Plato's writings, Herodotus etc that JSS mentioned?”

I do NOT question the historical authenticity of the NT. Certainly the NT exists. I’ve seen some very old copies myself and trust the scholars who say they have examined them. Please try to understand that the historical existence of the NT, including multiple copies, says nothing about the nature of its contents - it could be facts or history, legends, myths, midrash, etc. etc. The fact that many copies exist doesn’t make the stories in them factual. No connection.

Regarding Plato, Herodotus, etc. – the same applies. These writings, like any writings, exist irrespective of who wrote them and whether the contents are fact or fiction. I don’t personally know about any controversy surrounding these writings. I do know they are not as influential as the bible. People haven’t been raised to “believe” in them, to worship them or to fight and die for them, therefore, fewer people care about who wrote them and whether or not they are factual.

Hope that helps.

Also, you say, “It is my belief, that people in general dispute the veracity of the NT because if it were true, then it would have tremendous significance for the reader and important choices about how to live our lives would have to be made. So it is a lot easier to deny everything as rubbish, despite the evidence.”

Karen, see how I’ve tweaked your statement just a bit and changed its meaning: “Some Christians insist on the veracity of the NT because if it were not true, then it would have tremendous significance and important choices about how to live their lives would have to be made. So it is a lot easier to deny everything as rubbish, despite the evidence."

That’s what I see happening over and over again on this forum.

Concerned:

Thanks for sharing that observation about predestination. Not all Christian traditions adhere to predestination as it pertains to the doctrine of salvation.

Actually, there are a lot of Christian traditions (mine being one of them) which do not hold to predestination but which also do not dismiss the historicity of Jesus and maintain orthodox Christian beliefs at the same time. An added plus - many of these are also are not militant and judgmental fundamentalists as so many of us are judged to be on these boards.

I see "prophecies" are back. To resurrect a previous comment:

Look at "prophecies" from the standpoint of Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian: from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line: With just four sentences of profound common sense, Schillebeeckx vitiates all OT, NT, Mormon and Koranic prophecies. i.e. God does not the Future so Isaiah, Jesus, Joe Smith and Mohammed surely did not.

E Favorite and others, I think you have still failed to answer JSS basic question: given that you question the historical authenticity of the NT despite the multiple early copies, do you also dispute the authenticity of Plato's writings, Herodotus etc that JSS mentionned? By whatever standards you use to judge the NT, you should dispute the others much more because there are far fewer copies dating hundreds of years after the original works were written. Instead of making fun of JSS, why don't you simply answer the question?

I see this over and over again on these blogs: questions that people don't care to answer because they jeopardize their views or consistency are left unanswered.

By the way, regarding the source of the numbers re: NT. I recently went to an exhibit at the Sackler gallery in DC (part of the Smithonian) about early scriptures. The curators cite very similar numbers and dates for the NT. So, JSS is not making this up.

Many atheists, agnostics and doubters that have taken a hard look at the evidence for the veracity of the NT and the claims that it makes about Jesus have come out of their studies convinced of their veracity and authenticiy. It is my belief (and I know I'll get pilloried for this, but that's OK) that people in general dispute the veracity of the NT because if it were true, then it would have tremedous significance for the reader and important choices about how to live our lives would have to be made. So it is a lot easier to deny everything as rubbish, despite the evidence. Yet a few surviging copies of Plato dating hundreds of years after he lived get all the acceptance and respect possible.

By the way, to those who also deny prophecies, every time you call us christians fools for our faith, you are fulfilling an NT prophecy :)

JSS – the only established historical event is that there were many copies of the New testament. Lots of copies of the bible doesn’t mean lots of facts in the bible - just like lots of copies of the Da Vinci Code doesn’t make it factual – or lots of copies “The Gathering Storm” by Winston Churchill doesn’t make it factual. What makes that book factual are the facts in it which can be and have been verified. I hope you understand now.

Truly, your long posts, full of specific dates and numbers of copies, look like an attempt to convince by sheer volume. What is your source for all of this, by the way? It looks very detailed and official, but of course, just because it looks official, doesn’t mean it is.

Rob, we seem to be mostly in agreement.

I was questioning why people who claim that the Resurrection as historically accurate would find the allegorical meaning to be a reduction. I would think that the allegory would have a much richer meaning.

"Any experience only has the meaning you give it...If one sees allegorical meaning in the resurrection then they could still find it useful in their spiritual evolution."

That is part of the point I've been trying to make. Part of the problem is the evangelical aspect of Christianity, or of any religion that teaches both supernaturalism and evangelism. It's one thing when believers hold an anti-naturalist view of the world. It's another when they try to convince others to adopt such a view. The latter amounts to asking people to deny their own sense of reality, such as the evidence of their own eyes and ears. That's especially bad when the believers warn of dire consequences or penalties from angry deities if others don't convert, or (in the case of Augustine's Original Sin doctrine) attempt to saddle humans with the guilt for a crime they didn't commit.

Rob Adams:

Paul basically made the same point as Russell in 1st Corinthians:

“But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all others.”

As for your second question, there are currently plenty of people who don’t believe in either the resurrection or divinity of Jesus but adhere or at least greatly respect large portions of all His moral and ethical teachings. Miggs, who said he is a Christian, stated above when you asked him the same question: “I not only WOULD be fine with it; I AM fine with it.” How would finding the bones of Jesus make any difference if you didn’t believe He rose from the dead in the first place?

Ghostbuster:

I think I get your analogy. Are you saying it is black and white and if the resurrection did not happen then Christianity is dead? I can see that view point. Would there be some off shoot that focused on Christ’s message on how to live life or would it all go away?

Tonio: I was suggesting that if it was proven that the resurrection did not happen that it would be reduced to allegorical meaning, for those who believe it to historically accurate. I am saying that even allegorical meaning has MEANING.

Any experience only has the meaning you give it.

If one takes resurrection literally then I guess they may determine that it is now worthless and throw the baby out with the bath water. If one see’s allegorical meaning in the resurrection then they could still find it useful in their spiritual evolution.

I am just wondering how many people would throw the baby out with the bath water.

Wow Concerned,

You sound just a terrorist.

E-Favorite,

All I am saying is that we are dealing with very historically established events. Da Vinci Code was a fiction best seller. It's author NEVER claimed that it is true. He claimed that parts of it might be true. However, almost immediately, society at large completely rejected his story as fiction. Even his documented proofs were shown to be forgeries almost immediately.

AGain, we find absolutely NO similar rejection of the claims of Christianity in the early centuries.

You compare grapes and sushi again. Using Da Vinci Code as an example shows a severe lack of genuine understanding of the issues.

Russel,

Your cute rudeness belies your compassionate lack of intellectual integrity.

You denying that the Bible has historical validity is based on what...your cute rude compassionate character?

Calling names is a bit below...well...intellectually rigorous discussion. Nevertheless, perhaps you sent me to my cubbyhole because you had come out of your own.

Let's raise the level of the discussion a bit.

The gospels and Acts claim to be historical reports of the actual events. They claim to be historical just as much as Livy's Roman History or Caesar's Gallic Wars or Herodotus.

Would you argue those are not historical either. Do you claim to actually argue or....

The major weapon of Mass Destruction was Saddam Hussien. He was destroyed. Time to go home and let the crazy Sunnis and Shiites butcher each other as per the "koranic" guidelines of their good book.

Ghostbuster:

There weren't any WMD's, and Bush still gave the go ahead. So I guess it doesn't change anything does it? Just proves little Bush has something to prove to daddy and say screw the rest of the world. The man is a moron.

ok JSS:

We get the point! Now go back to your cubby hole and wait to be addressed! Good Boy!

And the Bible is not a history book dude. It's a collection of stories designed to bring the flock to the religion of Christianity. It was put together basically as a political agenda to unite Rome. Relax, take a zoloft and eat some cheerios or somethin.

Rob Adams: Maybe this analogy will answer your question. Let’s assume that on March 19, 2003, the day before the invasion of Iraq, it is proven to the world with 100% accuracy that there are NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All such weapons had already been destroyed. They were just a story. Zip, zero, nada chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. There may have been weapons there at one time; sure S. Hussein would use those types of weapons on his own kids. But there was nothing in Iraq now, not even an open can of bleach.

If disarming Iraq of its’ weapons of mass destruction was the primary reason (by far) for attacking, would it make any sense to invade the very next day based on this stunning new development?

JSS - As I said on the jacoby thread. No one is disputing that that the books of New Testament exist and were widely copied and distributed. This says nothing about the veracity of its contents.

"The Da Vinci Code" was an international bestseller. Does that make it true? Of course not. Many people thought it was however, even though it was presented upfront as a work of fiction.

It seems that if people are taught to believe something,(e.g. Santa Claus, Jesus) by trusted elders, they will, blocking out logical arguments against it and becoming unusually gullible to arguments that confirm their beliefs. Add the promise of eternal life, and I can see how such beliefs become resistant to normal logic.

If a bomb goes off it leaves evidence in a thousand different ways. If Christ's resurrection was really false, then this idea that a Catholic purge of historical documents has covered that up requires massive amounts of faith to believe.

Consider these historical documents. I will list the data for each in this order:
Work; When Written; Earliest copies; time span between writing and current copies; no. of copies

Herodotus; written 488-428 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Thucydides; written 460-400 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Tacitus; written 100 AD; earliest copy 1100 AD; 1000 years between; 20 copies

Caesar's Gallic War; written 58-50 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 950 years between; 9-10 copies

Livy's Roman History; written 59 BC-17 AD; earliest copy 900 AD; time between 900 years; 20 copies

New Testament; written 40-100 AD; earliest copy 130 AD (full manuscript 350 AD); time between 30-300 years; 26,300 copies

...all I am saying is that the evidence for the authenticity of the documents related to the New Testament is overwhelming compared to other documents that NO ONE disputes.

There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts; over ten thousand Latin manuscripts and 9300 other manuscripts, as well as over thirty-six thousand citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics every, F.J.A. Hort, said, "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the test of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings."
F.F. Bruce summarizes the evidence by quoting Sir Frederic Kenyon, a leading scholar in this area: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foudnation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the autheniticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
No Other Religion is founded on fulfilled prophecies given hundreds of years before the life of the religious leader. Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies (spoken by different voices over 500 years) including 29 major prophecies fulfilled in a single day. If Christ was such a clever con-man then how did he fulfill the prophecy about his birth place. Was he able to con his mother into moving to Bethlehem while he was still in the womb? What about prophecies about Herod's attempt to kill all children 2 years and under thereby requiring a move to Egypt to escape. Did Jesus as a barely speaking 2 year old convince his parents to choose Egypt?
It is absurd to think that Jesus was just a con-man. It is equally absurd to think that we have over 26,000 copies of the New Testament dated to within 300 years of being written and NOT ONE that says Jesus never existed or that he was a liar or that his followers were con-men.

Bishop Wright,

The yoke of Henry VIII around your neck makes one pause when reading any of your comments or books.

Well said Miggs.

That approach should serve you well.

"And certainly, life as a liberal Christian is no picnic, at least not spiritually. It's hard to pray to a symbol."

Is it necessary to pray at all? I mean in the sense of asking God for guidance, or asking God to bless loved ones, as opposed to prayer that is more like meditation.

Miggs - I'm with you, regarding "I'd rather go with acceptance of truth and let the chips fall where they may."

The hard part is knowing that clergy are not sharing their knowledge with parishioners and that many parishioners, capable of mature thought, are still stuck in a child's perception of religion, which is perpetuated by clergy. As I've said on this forum before, it's like a big game of "don't ask, don't tell" that can't last forever.

How do you cope with this?

PS, see "The Dishonest Church" by Jack Good, retired UCC minister, available on Amazon.

To reiterate:

Here is a copy of Professor JD Crossan's commentary about atonement theology (from his book, Who is Jesus? :

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Bottom line: God did not commit filicide.

Rob --

You asked:

"If it were proven that Jesus did not arise from the dead then the crucifixion and resurrection would be reduced to a story. Would that be sufficient for Christians to not lose faith? I sense maybe you would be fine with it. From others I have heard speak about Christianity I am not so sure. What do you think it would do to Christianity?"

I not only WOULD be fine with it; I AM fine with it. I think the notion that there was a literal, historical resurrection is pretty ridiculous. I don't want to be disrespectful to those who have that belief -- that's something I struggle with, frankly -- but I just don't think that people who take Scripture literally have really thought hard about it. You can take Scripture literally or you can take it seriously; you can't do both.

That said, I think a lot of people would be devastated to find that the meaning to be derived from Scripture is largely in the realm of symbolism rather than history. You're right that people tend to think about things simply; theological concepts off in the stratosphere are fine for some of us, but they're unlikely to form the basis of most people's religion. And certainly, life as a liberal Christian is no picnic, at least not spiritually. It's hard to pray to a symbol. But it's a complicated world, and symbols are what we've got. So for my part, I'd rather go with acceptance of truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Miggs

"If it were proven that Jesus did not arise from the dead then the crucifixion and resurrection would be reduced to a story."

Rob, are you suggesting that the Resurrection would cease to have any allegorical or metaphorical meaning? DNA research has debunked a literal reading of Adam and Eve as "the first man and first woman," postulating instead the concept of a single genetic ancestor. But I suppose one could still find allegorical meaning in the Garden of Eden story.

Miggs.

Thanks for the response.

When I said fabrication I was speaking in the terms that some people think it is totally bogus. I am not sure how they determine that, but that is their belief. The point is even if it were made up the message is still important.

Similar to the Conversation With God series by Neal Donald Walsch, you need not believe that he is having an actual conversation with God for some of the ideas to be useful or have merit.

I agree the meaning is more important than the text I am just afraid numerous people would not see that. I agree my ‘equation’ is rather simple. I try to go simple as some people get lost in the complexity of story, text and/or dogma.

Your interpretation of the crucifixion and resurrection and is in line with your comment meaning more important than text. If it were proven that Jesus did not arise from the dead then the crucifixion and resurrection would be reduced to a story. Would that be sufficient for Christians to not lose faith? I sense maybe you would be fine with it. From others I have heard speak about Christianity I am not so sure.

What do you think it would do to Christianity?

You said, "If Jesus' bodily remains were found, then Christianity as it began and continued was based on a mistake, or (more strongly) a lie." That sort of lie has a name, hoax.

The body of Jesus has been found, the person on who's life the Gospels are based, Amenophis IV. There are a lot of telltale clues in the Bible itself none the least of which is "the Amen" from Revelation.

According to the experts, the body of Amenophis IV hasn't been found. They're looking for a male and overlooking everything from the actual writing that includes pictures of "the Amen" a near blind person would identify as that of a woman. Are the experts who's livelyhood depends on "grants" covering up the truth?

http://www.hoax-buster.org has the best version of "The Amarna Era" in public view. Egypt is the source of the Bible, not Palestine. All the experts don't seem to rely on "grants" to make their findings. You can underline "lie" for the Bible is not a mistake, it's a proved hoax.

Blue and White,

Thanks for your post of 7:21 PM. I missed seeing it before I posted at 7:28 PM.

Blue and White,

Here's my post to Fr. Byron's thread that I referred to in my post above:

Posted on April 4, 2007 14:19

Norrie Hoyt:

If Christ was not risen, his best teachings still exist as an eternal good.

The idea of personal resurrection is just a selfish wish.

Faith in Christ's teachings, even though there be no resurrection, is not vain.

Posted April 4, 2007 4:46 PM

Christianity is safe, even if proof were found that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.
For centuries, it has adapted to increasing knowledge of the world around us.
True christians will not allow facts, science, or rational thought to change their beliefs.

Norrie:

Thanks for your response.

I think the whole point of Christianity (and Dr. Wright emphasizes this again and again in his posts)is that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with Abraham that Israel would be the light to the world.

As important as ethics and morality are, the heart of Christianity is that the resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate sign that Jesus truly was and is the fulfillment of this covenant. Other would be Messiahs who were killed by the Romans also had good moral teachings and their movements ended. Without the resurrection, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion about Jesus on this message board, just like we're not having a discussion right now of other Jewish self-acclaimed Messiahs who were killed by the Romans.

Blue and White,

I've always liked Bishop Wright and enjoyed his writings. Something set me off today. Perhaps it was the rather elliptical style which left me wondering what Bishop Wright's point actually was.

Perhaps it was the suggestion that without the resurrection Christianity and its message are entirely lost. I wrote in anothe thread today, contradicting the author, that even without the resurrection Christ's essential message remained an eternal good.

Bishop Wright wrote:

"Jesus Lives or Christianity Dies

"If Jesus' bodily remains were found, then Christianity as it began and continued was based on a mistake, or (more strongly) a lie."

This all-or-nothing view seemed immature and wrong to me. So I responded:

"I'll be blunt: Get over it!
The resurrection didn't happen. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Become a grown-up."

Meaning, implicitly, get on with life. Take Jesus's or the Buddha's ethics and try to live that way. Since no one really knows what happens after death, just live and stop grieving the loss of the resurrection dream. You'll be better off.

Regards.

Stu asks for evidence that no one has ever risen from the dead.

Rather than saying
"no one has ever risen from the dead"

the writer should have said
"there is no *reliable* evidence that anyone has risen from the dead."

I can't prove that no one has ever turned themselves inside out by sucking on a lollipop, but we can be pretty sure they haven't.

The resurrection is on the level of a myth or a fairy tale,

It is in the Bible. That's the evidence.
The evidence that the witch burned Hansel and Gretel is in the Book of Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Rufus Hill,

Add "Love God with your whole mind, heart and soul". Add "Love your neighbor as yourself" i.e. the two great commandments plus the Ten make Twelve.

For one I believe that the Message is more important than the Messenger, but it would seem tragic if it were proven that Christ was buried like a man, and there was no Resurrection. The Resurrection somehow assures an afterlife, and it means that we all have hope of redemption and can attain it because Christ really did die for our sins but yet arose in Glory and awaits us.
Glory, halleluljah!
(P.S. I don't understand the reference in the POST by the Christian Concerned to Twelve Commandments. Does he or she mean to add one to love our neighbor as ourselves. O.K. But what's the other. May God help us if it's not to speak ill of another Republican, a la Mr. Reagan. That would demean Christianity to an incredible level.)

"The fact that no one has ever risen from the dead"

Assertion of "fact" implies evidence.

Evidence please?

Many people have taken parts of Christianity to fashion a new kind of faith. But I think the point of Christianity is that it should be thoroughly rooted in the Jewish story of God's covenant with Israel to be a light to the world and how Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of that covenant. Christianity isn't so much a doctrine of abstract and arbitrary ideas as it is a narrative of God's desire to rescue the world as told in the Hebrew scriptures as well as the New Testament.

This is why the resurrection of Jesus is so central to the Christian faith. Without the resurrection, Jesus' would have simply been a failed Messiah (among many others.)

Regarding Easter candy, bunnies, and other "Easter symbols," the church has other symbols that are rooted in the Judeo/Christian understanding of Holy Week and Jesus' resurrection.

Ok, seriously, can someone give Jacob a tranquilizer?

Rob Adams --

I wanted to answer one of your questions/propositions:

"Christians correct me if I am a little off here, but shouldn’t the point of Christianity be Jesus’ message, not the fact that he was (or wasn’t resurrected). Even if Jesus was not the Son of God his teachings on how to live life are timeless. Even if the bible is a total fabrication then the lessons of the story (Jesus’ teachings) are still applicable to those that wish to pursue peace."

My answer, as a Christian: yes and no. Much of the Bible is "fabricated" in the sense you mean it. These are narratives that communities develop over time to try to explain the unexplainable -- and to render intelligible their way of looking at the world. In my view, that's how religions evolve; Christianity is no exception. Thus, the message -- or, as I'd put it, the meaning -- of the text is of far greater importance than the historical accuracy of the stories.

However, the teachings of Jesus are not the only place where Christians derive meaning. The equation isn't as simple as you describe: Jesus says X is the ethical way to behave, therefore we'll do X. The crucifixion and resurrection have profound meaning and are central to the Christian faith, as well. Their main point, in my view, is to symbolize humanity's hope for overcoming the evils of this world and living in a state of true love -- love for others, ourselves, and all of God's creation. This state of love -- or as the Old Testament puts it, "shalom," which is often translated as "peace" -- is how we as human beings can feel truly alive. When we're separated from this love, we feel spiritually dead; when we embrace it, we feel life. That, in an oversimplified nutshell, is the significance of the crucifixion and resurrection: humanity's potential for "life" defeating "death."

Pastor Jeremiah Wright in Chicago talks sometimes about "the audacity to hope." When everything seems wrong, when we feel isolated from God and others, hope seems naive. And yet, through Christianity, we keep on hoping. It's an amazing thing.

There are other meanings, of course, to the crucifixion and resurrection; e.g., a demonstration of God's love for us, and a reflection of how God feels our pain along with us. They all matter -- not just the ethics.

Miggs

It wouldn’t really change much for me seeing as I am an “independent” when it comes to religion. It would change Christianity though which would be both good and bad.

Perhaps it would create more free thinkers versus those that fall into the dogma trap. I am afraid though it would cause numerous Christians to abandon the faith and the religion would fall under attack and lose credibility.

There are some facets or teachings that I agree with in Christianity and many I don’t. I take what I find useful and move on. The unfortunate part is I think many people would forget or discard what they have found useful.

I am with Anon and Paul. The message is what counts. Since I explore many religions I apologize for my shallow understanding of Christianity. Christians correct me if I am a little off here, but shouldn’t the point of Christianity be Jesus’ message, not the fact that he was (or wasn’t resurrected). Even if Jesus was not the Son of God his teachings on how to live life are timeless. Even if the bible is a total fabrication then the lessons of the story (Jesus’ teachings) are still applicable to those that wish to pursue peace.

For me some other religions make more sense than Christianity. That being said I think it would be tragic to lose the teachings/lessons because the story was ‘off’.

Side Note: Jacob Jozevz, please stop posting material that is not related to the discussions. Thank You

Bishop,

FYI...God chose Israel, which encompassed 10 or so more tribes apart from those who came to be known as the Jews, and more specifically, certian groups of the Jews such as the Pharisees..a small group in comparison to all He has chosen before and since. Also, on the contrary- take Easter away (which is a mistranslation in the King James of the greek word pascha (Passover)) and truth returns. Our Lord and Savior, as Heb 13:8 states, is the same yesterday, today and forever. He did not ever, EVER, sanction the ways of the heathen to be a part of the way we worship Him. Easter, bunnies, colored eggs are all of pagan origin and are nothing but error. Jesus clearly taught what to do in remembrance of Him. It included none of the above Easter traditions. Jesus didnt advocate worshiping the sunrise, hot cross buns and the like..rather he instituted the New Testamant Passover symbols. Changes to what He taught came through tradition that man is responsible for, and that scripture warns against (Matt 15:9) Hence, Rev. 12:9, where we see the adversary has done his part in deceiving the whole world.

Blue and White:

Give me a question about Buddhism and I will try to answer it for you. While I am no scholar, I have been around the Nichiren Dishonin branch of Buddhism for over 20 years....maybe I can be of some help.

Norrie Hoyt Writes,

"Bishop Wright,
I'll be blunt: Get over it!
The resurrection didn't happen. Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Become a grown-up."

I don't understand how your response connects with the original post. Dr. Wright is explaining the tenets of Christianity and particularly the meaning of the resurrection for the Christian faith. He did not state in his post that Christianity is superior to the alternatives you mentioned.

Turn it around and have a Buddhist scholar shed some light on Buddhism on this message board. I can't imagine belittling him/her when that's not the main point anyway. The point of all of this is to hear what a particular religion/philosphy believes and not to get into a "my religion is better than your religion" banter.

As posted on other panelists' commentary pages:

Christianity would not disappear if Jesus' bones were found since Christianity is a way of life, a life built on the cornerstones of the Beatitudes and the Twelve Commandments. True Christianity is not dependent on floating bodies, ghosts, apparitions and "talking pretty wingy thingies".

The physical resurrection of Jesus has been reveiwed by many contemporary NT scholars. Most conclude that the physical resurrection did not occur. There are just too many conflicting stories about the event itself and lack of proper attestation from other scriptural sources.

Even common sense says the physical resurrection did not occur. The basis?? Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas. No bodies exist there. Therefore the body of Jesus (and Mary) even in a glory state cannot be there. It sure would be very strange, all those billions of souls plus the spirit/soul of God with a few alien beings wandering about with nothing to see, do or eat.

The body of Jesus decomposed or disappeared just as all human bodies disappear. See Professor Crossan's conclusions as noted in his books, Who is Jesus? and The Historical Jesus. Also see the information posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb017.html

This lack of physical resurrection is also being taught in large Catholic university theology classes e.g. Catholic U.

Easter is already becoming secularized so there should be little economic impact on "Christian" nations. Those that still believe in the physical resurrection have significant economic dependence on it e.g. popes, bishops, ministers evangelists and authors such as Professor NT Wright so they will continue the tradition to protect their jobs.

The tradition of Jesus embellishments served Christianity well in the time of uneducated "pew peasants". Paul for example added to these embellishments especially the "prophecy" of the second coming to fund the movement in the lands of the Gentiles. To say the least, he was quite successful. Now, however, the "pew peasants" have been educated and we want realism restored to our beliefs.

Bishop Wright,

I'll be blunt: Get over it!

The resurrection didn't happen. Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Become a grown-up.

Switch to Buddhism or Ethical Humanism. Their ethical systems are equal to or better than the best of Christian ethics.

Buddhism's is superior because it extends its ethical ideals to animals, and because salvation (enlightenment) is not dependent upon a belief in anything in particular, but rather on the perception and appreciation of reality.

No one can be sure of what, if anything, happens after death. So by switching to B or EH, you won't be any worse off than you are now.

I agree with most of Miggsathon's post. Even "God" wouldn't have to be an actual supernatural being, but a reference for the characteristics of love, healing, and devotion.

Bishop Wright --

We essentially agree on the meaning of Christianity and the resurrection: the hope of fulfilling the glory of God's creation. We and our world are to become a "new creation" -- subject not to the fears and evils that pervade the present world, but to the awesome love and reign of God. (Christus Victor!)

I certainly agree with this notion of bringing heaven to earth -- transforming and redeeming our world -- rather than simply waiting to go to a disembodied heaven after we die.

However, I don't see why that means we have to believe that the body of the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, literally rose from the dead. Can't we see the resurrection as a powerful symbol for the power of God to triumph in our world? Can't we see God's characteristics embodied in the narratives about Jesus's life -- love, healing, devotion, etc. -- and see the resurrection as displaying our hope for achieving that? Why do we need the physical resurrection to have actually taken place?

Along those lines, here's something to which I'm genuinely searching for an answer: where did Jesus's body supposedly go when he "ascended into heaven"? To the "right-hand of the father"? What does that even mean? If there is a finite, physical body to the Father's right, that means the Father himself must also be physical and finite. And it means there must be a physical place somewhere in the universe where Jesus and the father are, and that they are not in other places.

So where is this nook or cranny where I can find Jesus's body? Physically speaking, we know what's outside the earth: it's space. Lots and lots of space. So to say Jesus "ascended into heaven" is a literal absurdity. It is, however, a great symbol.

The way I see it -- and I'd be happy to hear a compelling alternative view -- we can't reasonably get our meaning of Jesus from believing that he physically exists somewhere. It just seems inane to me.

The fact that no one has ever risen from the dead, including dead Jewish carpenters with delusions of grandeur, proves that Christianity is a monumental hoax. Only for fools and knaves.

"Take Easter away, and we are at best like the first-century Jews, still hoping for redemption to happen but with no sign that it has just yet."

Why is redemption necessary? Without the cosmology of Judaism and Christianity, is there anything from which humans would need to be redeemed?

Sorry, the first post is mine

I'm with Anon on this one. Of course, the resurrection is a central aspect of Christian belief as it has developed over 2000 years but, whatever one's belief on this, the records we have of Jesus' ministry give us an insight into ways of living the only life we absolutely know that we have.

Everything else is a question of faith but the ideas Jesus shared with his friends and his enemies offer us now (as they have for two millenia) a path to tread, from cradle to grave, which would revolutionize this world. In much of what he says to me in the Gospels of a Sunday morning, Jesus seems to want me to think a little less about AFTER death and a lot more about how best to live before it.

In that context it seems a bit harsh to imply that only belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection can make anything else within our faith worthwhile

Some Christians seem to find meaning only in the death of Jesus. Perhaps that dates back to the beginning, maybe because his followers were shocked that he died such a horrible death (well, assuming that he actually lived) -- so much so that they had to invent a resurrection story to reassure themselves. So they took the details about the empty tomb, the three days, etc. etc. from other stories circulating about other heroes of the era, adopted rituals like the Eucharist from followers of Dionysis, etc. etc. Eventually a natural selection of many different ideas led to what you see today.

Perhaps, though, his followers could find meaning in the life of Jesus. Charity, peace, loving your enemies, that kind of thing.