Debate: Was Jesus actually resurrected and other arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter VictoriousTruther
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VictoriousTruther

Guest
Dear “The Catholic Answers Forum”,

I beseech a friendly debate on whether Jesus was resurrected and how this impacts specific Christian denominations. This may even dip a bit into original sin as i’ve heard that in some denominations this is pertinent to the Jesus story.

Here are a few things I may ask for If you are able to provide some:
-It would be helpful for me that one of you could point out what are the specific reasons for there needing to be a resurrected Jesus in the first place, what is the Christian response to this. (Varied responses from differing Christian denominations are appreciated)
-More or less a specific explanations of what Jesus is in Certain denominational dogma’s or belief systems.
-The historical evidence for such a claim regarding the resurrection.
-Anything else that I couldn’t think of, etc. . .
 
Last edited:
For your second to last point, why would the Apostles die horrible deaths for a faked resurrection? if it was all a lie, why die?
 
To add on to this how do we explain the huge growth in the Church and it’s spread across the Roman Empire if it was a lie, hoax, conspiracy, etc? Why would we have so many Church Fathers writing from stances of authority against heresies if the Resurrection didn’t happen? Furthermore, the early church wasn’t converted by having a New Testament handed to them and then explained why they needed to be Christians; that Jews and Gentiles both converted suggests they did so based on reliable eyewitness accounts and not solely on air-tight theological arguments. I just don’t think we would have seen the conversion and spread of Christianity in the manner it took, along with the wealth of literature in the ante-Nicene period had Christ been anything other than who and what He is believed to be by Christians.
 
First, this is somewhat of straw man, course I haven’t really laid out a full position, as i’m not arguing that the resurrection itself was faked intentional, at least that is what i’m assuming from the usage you have. All kinds of possibilities with in reason are on the board from legendary or mythical fabrications of the original stories themselves, the occasional intentional fabrications of the documents with malicious intent; aka lying, lunacy ran rampant, etc. Course most of these I don’t even hold a candle to, even in theory or hypothetical contemplation.
 
i never claimed that you said the resurrection was faked. however, you never addressed my point, or @RKS89 's, that the Apotles would have given their lives for a lie if Jesus had not died.
 
Second, following up on the two other claims or arguments you have presented, here is my answer. Dying for a cause does not necessitate the truth or falsity of the cause itself. It merely remains as a testament to how they had emotional attached to the cause itself and how much it meant to them.

If it was a lie or had some truth hidden with in it, they all died the same whether they new it or did not.
 
To suggest that error crept into the accounts of Christ’s life, including the Resurrection, simply isn’t very historically accurate. We have an immense number if manuscripts of the Gospels and these all generally agreed upon to be reliable and trustworthy as far as historical documents go. Then you have to consider we’re getting all of this passed on orally (originally) by a people who have made it their business to memorize and pass on impressive amounts of information. Also, to return to the heretics for a moment, it seems that any error that could or would have crept into “orthodox” Christianity would have been pretry quickly delt with. That’s why, for example, the Gnostic Gospels are considered bunk- you had a whole community of Christians who would have heard them and said uh…who told you that nonsense?
 
Only ‘some’ denominations of Christianity find the resurrection and original sin related?

Lol 🤔
 
I’d tend to agree with you…if our list of martyrs was much shorter. That isn’t the case, and I’m not sure it’s reasonable to say we had great numbers of faithful Christians dying in some pretty horrendous ways because of “emotional attachment”. Martyrdom shouldn’t be taken as concrete evidence of the truth of the Ressurection, however it certainly points to the veracity of the claim. It seems more likely the movement would have collapsed under such harsh persecution as opposed to flourishing and eventually expanding all over the Empire. Again, that doesn’t “prove” it, but I think the historical record strongly suggests it happened.
 
The growth in the Church and its spread across the Roman Empire would be rather a testament to how convincing the early christians were and how invested they were in the belief system. Whether Jesus was god and resurrected, or he himself was merely resurrected, or this is in some way an embellishment of a real person but with mythical elements added on later on by the writers or through here say before the written gospels should be considered irrelevant to whether Christianity could or couldn’t have developed the way it did. Christianity becoming as successful in its development as it was, cannot be judged on whether the claims themselves were true or not true as this revolves around personal beliefs formed and based on self arrogance, ignorance, or more likely the convincing nature that they had on at the time.

How convincing something can be is independent of how true or false it is.
 
in the resurrection of Jesus… did he not exist at all, was the Passion faked, did he fake his death, did he die and not riese…
 
That may well be. However suggesting that some kind of mythical attributes were assigned to Christ at later dates is also not true. We see St. Paul’s translation Greek in 1 Corinthians with anarthrous construction, suggesting he is quoting an earlier formula probably spoken in Aramaic. So the Church held to High Christology well before the end of the 1st century, it was not a later invention.
 
He may have existed as a historical person but as a prophesied or Christian Jesus, that it up to discussion. I’m not implying that he faked anything nor that he just died and wasn’t resurrected. But if you want to argue those points, go ahead.
 
Give me a bit of a break on the replies, i’m a slow typer, WOW.
 
Where do you stand, is what i’m trying to say. I need to know your opinion to attempt to convince you otherwise.
 
Most of the more mythical aspects of the resurrection tale are what I object to, at least i’m not convinced of them.
 
Last edited:
so… you believe that Christ existed, went through the Passion and Crucifixion, was placed in the tomb, and then it ended there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top