Can the Resurrection be disproved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zynxensar

Guest
There’s a wealth of information that supports that the Resurrection did happen. Are there any articles or books that provide a decent argument against this? (Not trying to de-Catholicise - in this even a word lol - myself, just wondering)
 
There is the argument stating that the earliest Christians didn’t believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.
 
Interesting. Meaning they thought his resurrection was purely spiritual?
 
This was a hot topic with Early Christians. It led to quite a few different groups who defined Christ’s passion in some interesting ways, and heretical ways. There were also Early Christians who believed strongly and this led to the first Council, then the second, as Christian thought firmed up under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Just as the Resurrection cannot be proven today, it cannot be disproven.
Faith
 
Well, I can think of a few.
  1. After being scourged, crucified, having his heart piericed with a lance, and buried in a tomb for a few days without food or water, he rolled back the stone without attracting the attention of his guards (the penalty for sleeping on duty was death) staggered over to the disciples, and convinced them that he was the glorious risen Lord.
  2. The best argument is probably to deny the existence of Christ.
    I have more if you want, but mostly like the first.
 
Last edited:
EZweber said:
After being scourged, crucified, having his heart piericed with a lance, and buried in a tomb for a few days without food or water, he rolled back the stone without attracting the attention of his guards (the penalty for sleeping on duty was death) staggered over to the disciples, and convinced them that he was the glorious risen Lord.
Click to expand...
I don’t get it. This is a caricature of the Resurrection, but how is it an argument against the Resurrection? Is the argument that dead people don’t rise from the dead, so Christ didn’t rise from the dead?
 
snarflemike said:
I don’t get it. This is a caricature of the Resurrection, but how is it an argument against the Resurrection? Is the argument that dead people don’t rise from the dead, so Christ didn’t rise from the dead?
Click to expand...
I think the argument is that the guards would have seen him roll away the stone and walk away.
 
As mentioned already, many early Christians did not believe Jesus’ resurrection to be physical. As for the general resurrection in the future? One of the arguments put forward by Medieval Muslim philosophers is as follows:

Consider the corpse of a man who has been buried, his corpse decays & decomposes, becoming a constituent of the minerals in the soil, which in turn are constituents for the nutrients of growing vegetation, which in turn become nutrients to a wild animal that eats vegetation, which in turn becomes nutrients to a human being that consumes the animal, who in turn has the nutrition required to reproduce another human being. At the general resurrection, what will happen to the human being who was initially buried?

This is one of the absurdities which follow from the concept of a purely physical resurrection.

“We have decreed among you Death; We shall not be outstripped; that We may exchange the likes of you, and make you to grow again in a fashion you know not.”- Qur’an 56:60-61
 
LawyersGunsAndMoney said:
I think the argument is that the guards would have seen him roll away the stone and walk away.
Click to expand...
Well, in Matthew’s account, they saw the angel roll away the stone, stood as if dead, and then went and told the chief priests, who gave them money to spread the story that Jesus’ supporters had come and taken the body. The chief priests also told them that they would protect the guards from any punishment by the governor.
 
snarflemike said:
40.png
EZweber:
After being scourged, crucified, having his heart piericed with a lance, and buried in a tomb for a few days without food or water, he rolled back the stone without attracting the attention of his guards (the penalty for sleeping on duty was death) staggered over to the disciples, and convinced them that he was the glorious risen Lord.
Click to expand...
I don’t get it. This is a caricature of the Resurrection, but how is it an argument against the Resurrection? Is the argument that dead people don’t rise from the dead, so Christ didn’t rise from the dead?
Click to expand...
There are some people who try to argue that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross but “fainted” (lost consciousness) and that the soldiers only thought he was dead. He then revived in the tomb and managed to get out.

I think EZWeber is mocking that argument.
 
snarflemike said:
I don’t get it. This is a caricature of the Resurrection, but how is it an argument against the Resurrection? Is the argument that dead people don’t rise from the dead, so Christ didn’t rise from the dead?
Click to expand...
No, I’ve actually heard this; he survived the Crucifixion and passed out; then he rolled back the stone and convinced the disciples that he had risen from the dead.
 
Zaccheus said:
There are some people who try to argue that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross but “fainted” (lost consciousness) and that the soldiers only thought he was dead. He then revived in the tomb and managed to get out.

I think EZWeber is mocking that argument.
Click to expand...
Ah, got it.
 
EZweber said:
No, I’ve actually heard this; he survived the Crucifixion and passed out; then he rolled back the stone and convinced the disciples that he had risen from the dead.
Click to expand...
OK, understand now, thanks.
 
SalamKhan said:
As mentioned already, many early Christians did not believe Jesus’ resurrection to be physical. As for the general resurrection in the future? One of the arguments put forward by Medieval Muslim philosophers is as follows:
Click to expand...
Just a question; I thought the Muslim position was that Christ did not die on the Cross? I believe that the usual position is that Judas took his place. I could be wrong; I’m no scholar on Islam.
 
EZweber said:
Just a question; I thought the Muslim position was that Christ did not die on the Cross? I believe that the usual position is that Judas took his place. I could be wrong; I’m no scholar on Islam.
Click to expand...
Majority of Muslims interpret the verse that Jesus did not die, literally, and then go on to believe added interpretations such as Judas taking his place. One school of thought however, the Ismaili Shiah view, is that Jesus was crucified, however the language used which seemingly denies this is due to Jesus being a martyr, and the Qur’an also says not to consider martyrs as dead.

I am hoping to buy this book in the near future:


Because it seems that the Ismaili Shiahs weren’t the only ones who believed in the crucifixion of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
SalamKhan said:
Sects such as the Ebionites, although their positions are only known today from their opponents, such as Epiphanius.
Click to expand...
More specific please. When were the Ebonites established? Were they ever supported by the Apostles? Why do they say he only rose spiritually? What is their evidence? Is it better than the biblical texts? This is all very important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top