Ask a Pagan

[josh987654321]

To clarify, by “non-Christian verification of the event” I was referring to non-Christian eyewitness verification, not merely accounts of non-Christians who read the accounts – presumably centuries later – and found them to be convincing.

Even the gospels give no account of any Roman or Jew having witnessed the resurrected Christ; but maybe that was Christ’s intention.

From a non-faith perspective, though, it would have been nice to have had a resurrection that was as much on public display, as was the crucifixion.

How about St. Thomas? known as doubting Thomas because he did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected until he touched the wounds of Jesus and watched him eat a piece of fish.

Than he said to Jesus “You are my Lord and my God.” and Jesus said “You believe because you have seen, blessed are those who have not seen and believe.”

All of those who witnessed Jesus resurrection were Jews.

Even the Roman soldier who witnessed Jesus’ death said “This man truly was the son of God.”

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Portofino]

Why, Portofino, do you assign this criterion?

It seems rather arbitrary to me.

It’s simply that I think it would give us comparatively more to work with, than the silence of Roman or Jewish commentators.

For example, if a Roman of the time were to write, “Jesus did appear after his crucifixion, but not because he resurrected; rather, because he survived the crucifixion”; or if a Jewish author were to write, “Jesus did rise from the dead, resurrected by the power of Satan himself” then there would be more public evidence that something out of the ordinary happened subsequent to the crucifixion of Jesus, that demands explanation.

As you know, some of the information that has come down to us about famous figures – Pelagius, for example, or Epicurus – was written about them by their enemies, those who who had no great love for them. These enemies are biased, in a different way – if their friends are inclined to be biased in their favor, their enemies are inclined to be biased against them, and even slander their name.

But one’s enemies can unwittingly validate the event via how much they themselves admit. Thus, you could say, “this account was written by one of Christianity’s most vociferous enemies, and even he concedes that something out of the ordinary happened.”

In another sense, one’s enemies and one’s friends are both poor witnesses, just in different respects. There is a potential conflict of interest, in providing a neutral account.

That being said, I don’t think it’s accurate to place all commentators either in the enemy camp or the friends camp; you can also have someone who is “interested”, “curious”, “inquiring”, simply reporting the facts as he sees them and trying to make sense of it.

seems to be your argument: I won’t believe any writings that state that Jesus rose from the dead, because that means that it was not written by a dispassionate observer. But I will believe writing written by people who state they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, because that means it was written by a dispassionate observer.

Yes, I’m mistrustful of the gospel accounts because they were written by friends of Jesus, so to speak. In a different context, I would be mistrustful if a close friend was the primary witness, for the innocence of the accused. By the same token, I would be suspicious if the accused’s worst enemy testified that he was guilty.

However, if the accused’s worst enemy testified that he was innocent – and begrudgingly, at that – I would submit that this is more compelling evidence, given that there is no motive I can identity that would incline him to have been biased in his worst enemy’s favor.

 

[Porknpie]

Assuming that you are right and Fatima was not the work of God via Mary as the messenger, then the answer to the following questions is - Yes?
Yes the god’s or whatever it is, lie
Yes the god’s or whatever it is, steer people to Christianity by pretending to be Mary, the Mother of God
Yes the god’s have people pray to Mary the Mother of God
Yes the god’s give people a vision of the Christian version of hell
Yes the god’s make miracles through a Christian figure, Mary
Yes the god’s make accurate predictions through a Christian figure, Mary

Skadi does not have an answer as to why his God’s seem to like Christianity so much, saying that they can do whatever the hell they want is not an answer…

What differentiates man from other animals is our ability to reason, and yet…his response…

Skadi follows as a very strange idea of God.

 

[Portofino]

How about St. Thomas? known as doubting Thomas because he did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected until he touched the wounds of Jesus and watched him eat a piece of fish.

Than he said to Jesus “You are my Lord and my God.” and Jesus said “You believe because you have seen, blessed are those who have not seen and believe.”

All of those who witnessed Jesus resurrection were Jews.

Even the Roman soldier who witnessed Jesus’ death said “This man truly was the son of God.”

Thank you for reading
Josh

No, I appreciate what you are saying about the Roman soldier. He was ahead of the curve, proclaiming “this man was the Son of God” at the foot of the crucified Christ. He didn’t need the resurrection : )

Thomas was one of the 12 apostles of Christ, already a follower of Jesus, as was Peter and the other apostles. All of them were Jews who were friends and disciples of Jesus, prior to his crucifixion.

There is no gospel account of the witness of the resurrection of Christ reaping new converts – but maybe the time for eyewitness conversion was past, and now it was time for faith (“blessed are those who have not seen and who believe”).

 

[josh987654321]

It’s simply that I think it would give us comparatively more to work with, than the silence of Roman or Jewish commentators.

For example, if a Roman of the time were to write, “Jesus did appear after his crucifixion, but not because he resurrected; rather, because he survived the crucifixion”; or if a Jewish author were to write, “Jesus did rise from the dead, resurrected by the power of Satan himself” then there would be more public evidence that something out of the ordinary happened subsequent to the crucifixion of Jesus, that demands explanation.

As you know, some of the information that has come down to us about famous figures – Pelagius, for example, or Epicurus – was written about them by their enemies, those who who had no great love for them. These enemies are biased, in a different way – if their friends are inclined to be biased in their favor, their enemies are inclined to be biased against them, and even slander their name.

But one’s enemies can unwittingly validate the event via how much they themselves admit. Thus, you could say, “this account was written by one of Christianity’s most vociferous enemies, and even he concedes that something out of the ordinary happened.”

In another sense, one’s enemies and one’s friends are both poor witnesses, just in different respects. There is a potential conflict of interest, in providing a neutral account.

That being said, I don’t think it’s accurate to place all commentators either in the enemy camp or the friends camp; you can also have someone who is “interested”, “curious”, “inquiring”, simply reporting the facts as he sees them and trying to make sense of it.

Yes, I’m mistrustful of the gospel accounts because they were written by friends of Jesus, so to speak. In a different context, I would be mistrustful if a close friend was the primary witness, for the innocence of the accused. By the same token, I would be suspicious if the accused’s worst enemy testified that he was guilty.

However, if the accused’s worst enemy testified that he was innocent – and begrudgingly, at that – I would submit that this is more compelling evidence, given that there is no motive I can identity that would incline him to have been biased in his worst enemy’s favor.

There is no way the enemies of Christ would testify to those things as it was the reason why so many were putting their faith in Jesus Christ.

Remember they even wanted to kill Lazarus because he had been raised from the dead by Jesus and was the reason why so many were putting their faith in Jesus, so why would his enemies testify to those things in order for more to follow Christ?

Also there probably are other small testimonies from other eye witnesses that have either been lost or destroyed etc or if they were negatively writtin about Jesus, they would have been destroyed due to hearsay.

I don’t know about what other scriptures are out there, but if there were testimonies to Jesus’ miracles that were from his enemies or negatively written about Jesus, they would most likely have been destroyed by the early Church due to hearsay.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

For example, if a Roman of the time were to write, “Jesus did appear after his crucifixion, but not because he resurrected; rather, because he survived the crucifixion”; or if a Jewish author were to write, “Jesus did rise from the dead, resurrected by the power of Satan himself” then there would be more public evidence that something out of the ordinary happened subsequent to the crucifixion of Jesus, that demands explanation.

Anyone who did this would have had to have had the strength, courage and conviction of…dare I say it?..a Believer.

For a member of the Roman establishment to write down and proclaim that the man whom the Romans had executed had been seen would be to declare the incompetence of his superiors.

And for a member of the Jewish faith to proclaim that the man who said he was going to die and rise actually did die and rise would be to make himself a target for stoning. Or crucifixion.

So remember what it is you are asking for here, Portofino.

 

[PRmerger]

However, if the accused’s worst enemy testified that he was innocent – and begrudgingly, at that – I would submit that this is more compelling evidence, given that there is no motive I can identity that would incline him to have been biased in his worst enemy’s favor.

Yeah, well you already have that. There is no doubt that he was one of the accused worst enemies. But you have rejected his writings as well.

Methinks that you have set up something so arbitrary, elusive and illusory in order for you to be able to ignore the truth that has been pulling at your heart, Portofino.

You say you want a non-Christian to believe in the resurrection.

You are given examples of this: your own testimony of Buddhists and Hindus.

Then you say, “Well, not the resurrection, but I want someone who saw him that wasn’t a Christian.”

You are given examples of the Jews and Romans.

Then you say, “Well, not them. I mean someone who was an enemy of Christianity.”

You are given an example.

I suspect you’re going to have to dismiss him as well. Based on what argumentation, I can’t imagine at this point.

 

[SteveVH]

There is no gospel account of the witness of the resurrection of Christ reaping new converts – but maybe the time for eyewitness conversion was past, and now it was time for faith (“blessed are those who have not seen and who believe”).

Because it wasn’t recorded in the Gospels. Have you ever heard of the Book of Acts? Read about Pentecost. All of those in the upper room experienced the risen Christ who appeared in spite of locked doors and windows. And then the Holy Spirit descended upon them. One must explain what happened up there. One moment they are hiding in fear for their lives. The next they are on the street preaching. It was exactly the witnesses to the resurrection, which included the Apostles, that converted thousands; three thousand the first day.

 

[Skadi]

Skadi does not have an answer as to why his God’s seem to like Christianity so much, saying that they can do whatever the hell they want is not an answer…

What differentiates man from other animals is our ability to reason, and yet…his response…

Skadi follows as a very strange idea of God.

Here I do have to disagree, All animals can reason, but because the human brain is the most developed of any animal, we do so on a much higher level. Humans are not particularly fast, or tough. We have no claws or large fangs with which to hunt, and our sense of smell, hearing, and taste are pathetic when compared to other mammals, both predators and prey. There are only two areas in which humans excel over other mammals, eyesight and intelligence. Humans major advantage was that we out-think our prey. As such, the more integument ancestors of humanity were able to survive more often and even develop tools to replicate things such as claws. This is why we are so much more intelligent than even our closest genetic relatives, our brain is our only advantage. Sadly, modern urban society has changed this, but I do not agree with the theory that only humans can reason or have a soul.

 

[joe371]

Here I do have to disagree, All animals can reason, but because the human brain is the most developed of any animal, we do so on a much higher level. Humans are not particularly fast, or tough. We have no claws or large fangs with which to hunt, and our sense of smell, hearing, and taste are pathetic when compared to other mammals, both predators and prey. There are only two areas in which humans excel over other mammals, eyesight and intelligence. Humans major advantage was that we out-think our prey. As such, the more integument ancestors of humanity were able to survive more often and even develop tools to replicate things such as claws. This is why we are so much more intelligent than even our closest genetic relatives, our brain is our only advantage. Sadly, modern urban society has changed this, but I do not agree with the theory that only humans can reason or have a soul.

You forgot to answer the questions. Please do not tell me that they can “do whatever the hell they want…” That serves no purpose:

Assuming that you are right and Fatima was not the work of God via Mary as the messenger, then the answer to the following questions is - Yes?
Yes the god’s or whatever it is, lie
Yes the god’s or whatever it is, steer people to Christianity by pretending to be Mary, the Mother of God
Yes the god’s have people pray to Mary the Mother of God
Yes the god’s give people a vision of the Christian version of hell
Yes the god’s make miracles through a Christian figure, Mary
Yes the god’s make accurate predictions through a Christian figure, Mary

 

[vsedriver]

PART 2 OF 2

Nota bene

 

[joe371]

Skadi does not have an answer as to why his God’s seem to like Christianity so much, saying that they can do whatever the hell they want is not an answer…

If God (The Holy Trinity) is not real as Skadi suggests, then my question is: why in the world would the god’s work a miracle (Fatima) in the name of the Holy Trinity? I just do not get the logic.

 

[Portofino]

You do realize, Portofino, that prior to the resurrection there were no Christians. You do know that, right? Everyone who was a follower of Jesus was a Jew, or Roman or Galilean.

Therefore, anyone who witnessed the resurrection fits your criterion.

Yes, I do realize that Peter, Thomas, and the other apostles were “Jewish followers of Christ.”

My point was that, in the gospel accounts themselves, none witnessed Christ’s resurrection who were not already followers of Christ prior to his crucifixion.

Although the apostles were not Christians in the modern signification of the term, they were certainly followers of Christ (“follow me”); they were, indeed, his friends, as he himself called them.

 

[PRmerger]

My point was that, in the gospel accounts themselves, none witnessed Christ’s resurrection who were not already followers of Christ prior to his crucifixion.

How do you know? How do you know that of the thousands that he appeared to, all were already his followers?

 

[Portofino]

Yeah, well you already have that. There is no doubt that he was one of the accused worst enemies. But you have rejected his writings as well.

Paul wasn’t an eyewitness to the resurrection, and never claimed to be; though he did claim to have a transformative experience on the road to Damascus. That I know. It was a subjective experience that rocked him to his very foundations.

It was a first-person testimony, so I admit one either finds it compelling, or one doesn’t. No one else was there with him, but one certainly saw the impact that it had on his life. He certainly seemed to have believed it had happened to him, in all sincerity.

I’m puzzled because, if there were incontrovertible proof of the resurrection, what would be the value of faith?

that you have set up something so arbitrary, elusive and illusory in order for you to be able to ignore the truth that has been pulling at your heart, Portofino.

Perhaps I don’t think it’s arbitrary or elusive on my part, but I’m obviously very interested in the gospels; they do not leave me indifferent.

say you want a non-Christian to believe in the resurrection.

I’m just pointing out we have testimony from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all of whom were the earliest followers of Jesus. From what I understand, none of the evangelists were believed to have met Christ in the flesh; rather, they were transcribing an early oral tradition that, at best, could trace itself back to Christ’s earliest followers, indeed to the apostles themselves.

I do not feel compelled to consider everything that they write about, thereby proven.

I don’t see that as arbitrary or illusory, just cautiously taking it with a grain of salt, and considering that the resurrection has limited historical verification.

are given examples of this: your own testimony of Buddhists and Hindus.

This wasn’t testimony, in the sense of “we were there.” Rather, it was support in the sense of, “we find it convincing.” Those same Buddhists and Hindus do not believe he was the Son of God, nor do they believe in the Trinity; nor do they believe that he died to take away the sins of the world. If I am to believe what Hindus and Buddhists say, about the resurrection of Christ, why am I not to believe them when they just as authoritatively say that Christianity is based on the misunderstanding that there is anything unique about Christ’s resurrection?

you say, “Well, not the resurrection, but I want someone who saw him that wasn’t a Christian.”

Yes, I admit – even per the gospels, the actual number of witnesses to the resurrected Christ was few. There is nowhere near the same public amplitude, of the appearance of the resurrected Christ, as is suggested regarding the crucifixion. This is borne out by the fact that written testimony of the event is limited to the four gospels, which Christians believe to be the inspired word of God.

I would have settled for some non-inspired texts bearing witness, if the event was indeed for public consumption.

Why not simply believe that Christ did not intend it to be for public consumption? After all, when he healed, he sometimes said, “tell no one about this.”

Or are all historians incompetent, who do not grant that the resurrection was “obviously” an incontrovertible historical fact, with overwhelming evidence?

 

[Portofino]

How do you know? How do you know that of the thousands that he appeared to, all were already his followers?

I’m not aware that the resurrected Christ was claimed to have appeared to thousands of people; are there any gospel citations to that effect? It does appear that he was known by thousands, during his public ministry – making followers of many, enemies of others (many of the Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests, if we are to believe the gospels), but probably leaving few indifferent.

It’s as if his public ministry ends, with the crucifixion – even in the gospels themselves, there is no further preaching to multitudes on hilltops, nor on boats, nor in the synagogue.

If Jesus had shown up in the synagogue, as the risen Christ, it probably would have rocked Pharisaic Judaism to its very core. I don’t preclude the possibility that it wasn’t the intention of Jesus, to announce himself to the general public as having risen (would some evil-minded individuals have tried to arrest him, a second time?)

The irony is that even if I am convinced by the gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection, I am just as well justified in noting that he appeared, in the flesh, only to those who had already mourned his death (to Peter, to Mary Magdalene, to his other disciples).

 

[josh987654321]

Paul wasn’t an eyewitness to the resurrection, and never claimed to be; though he did claim to have a transformative experience on the road to Damascus. That I know. It was a subjective experience that rocked him to his very foundations.

Acts 9:7-9

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

So Pauls transformative experiance wasn’t entirely subjective.

Yes, I admit – even per the gospels, the actual number of witnesses to the resurrected Christ was few. There is nowhere near the same public amplitude, of the appearance of the resurrected Christ, as is suggested regarding the crucifixion. This is borne out by the fact that written testimony of the event is limited to the four gospels, which Christians believe to be the inspired word of God.

Not just limited to the four Gospels, however the four Gospels, Mathew, Mark, Luke & John are the most accurate, many of the other gospels contain some doctrinal errors and some false accounts (hearsay) like that of the Gospel of Judas.

I have started a new thread because I don’t know how many other scriptures in relation to the New Testament there are out there that are not in the Bible.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=793137

I have just been reading the “Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as the “Acts of Pilate”)” In which the resurrection of Jesus Christ is testified several times by those who were not part of the 11 (excluding Judas Iscariot) desciples.

I have been reading it online here - folk.uio.no/lukeb/books/apocrypha/Gospel_of_Nicodemus.pdf

I would have settled for some non-inspired texts bearing witness, if the event was indeed for public consumption.

There are many, I listed them on this thread -

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=793137

However I don’t know how accurate they are.

Why not simply believe that Christ did not intend it to be for public consumption? After all, when he healed, he sometimes said, “tell no one about this.”

He often said “tell no one about this” but it was only until after his resurrection.

Or are all historians incompetent, who do not grant that the resurrection was “obviously” an incontrovertible historical fact, with overwhelming evidence?

There is a great deal of historical evidence to grant the resurrection of Jesus, yet some will not believe unless they see like St. Thomas and others will refuse to believe even if they see like the teachers of the Law of Moses and the Pharisees.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Porknpie]

Yes, I do realize that Peter, Thomas, and the other apostles were “Jewish followers of Christ.”

My point was that, in the gospel accounts themselves,** none witnessed Christ’s resurrection who were not already followers of Christ prior to his crucifixion.**

Although the apostles were not Christians in the modern signification of the term, they were certainly followers of Christ (“follow me”); they were, indeed, his friends, as he himself called them.

Portofino -

No, you are not right here.

• St Luke did not witness Christ’s resurrection…he was not a follower of Christ until after his resurrection. He was Greek not Jewish. Read more here. The first words of Luke, Chaper 1 are clear:

1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,
3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

• St Paul likewise was not a follower of Christ (he persecuted Christians) and did not convert until after Christ appeared to him, after his resurrection.

Suggest reading the Gospel of Luke…then the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Skadi]

You forgot to answer the questions. Please do not tell me that they can “do whatever the hell they want…” That serves no purpose:

Assuming that you are right and Fatima was not the work of God via Mary as the messenger, then the answer to the following questions is - Yes?
Yes the god’s or whatever it is, lie
Yes the god’s or whatever it is, steer people to Christianity by pretending to be Mary, the Mother of God
Yes the god’s have people pray to Mary the Mother of God
Yes the god’s give people a vision of the Christian version of hell
Yes the god’s make miracles through a Christian figure, Mary
Yes the god’s make accurate predictions through a Christian figure, Mary

1. Yes, the gods are capable of lying just like any other entity.
2. This entity, whatever it was, did on this occasion.
3. this entity did. But any sort of prayer or meditation can be helpful to personal growth.
4. If you want to scare someone, not much scarier than that.
5. miracles appear in most all religions.
6. again i doubt it was a god and not some other entity, but who am I to say what they can and cannot do.

 

[PRmerger]

1. Yes, the gods are capable of lying just like any other entity.

What is your source for this?