Jesus Rose From the Dead, but is Christainity True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yep

Guest
Hello All,

I was watching a debate between years ago on the resurrection of Christ. The atheist had an interesting rejoinder: if you can purpose a supernatural explanation, so can I.

The Atheist did not say this, but I’m bringing it up. For example, Jesus is accused of being inhabited by a demon during his ministry. Which he then says “a house can not…” But, taken simply, after all the evidence for the resurrection is laid out, someone could just say “yeah, it makes sense that a demon infested man rose from the dead and spread false teaching.” Which I find difficult to logically refute.

I think this is a reason why we Christians have such difficulty converting Hindu’s to Christianity. Instead of arguing that a natural explanation can explain the resurrection, they come up with a theological one from their own tradition, “He was a guru,” “He was an incarnation of Vishnu,” “He was…”

For example, off the top of my head, I could make the theological refutation to the resurrection proving Christianity true by arguing that: “Vishnu sent one of his best helpers to incarnate as Jesus, at which point he did all of the things that Christians believe he did and then rose from the dead. However, you have to understand that Vishnu had to make a more civilized form of religion that was closer to his heart while at the same time non-Hindu’s would find it convincing. So, he lied a little about his nature to get people closer to himself more quickly after they reincarnated. The next life good Christians can be Hindus, but right now the Greeks need something more suited to them. Next life, they will find out the truth, not this one.”

So, what do you think? I’ve been chewing on this one for a while trying to get a good comeback. A little help?
 
Yep said:
someone could just say “yeah, it makes sense that a demon infested man rose from the dead and spread false teaching.” Which I find difficult to logically refute.
Click to expand...
So in that scenario, what did the demon gain? demons seek the ruin of souls not their salvation. A demon would teach to sin not the opposite. This is easier to refute than you think.
 
I think it’s a little more tricky.

But, what if a demon wanted us to worship Gone incorrectly, so the demon gave us the trinity. And of course you could put an other fundamental teaching in the Trinities place and say, that was the demon’s teaching. Since so much of our ethics do in fact come from revelation, what if some of that revelation was corrupted?

It’s common for Jews and Muslims to refer to us Christians as polytheists, that seems like it would hurt our souls.
 
The Trinity does not fundamentally challenge the notion that God is one. So again what would the demon gain? demons are evil they would not be satisfied until a soul goes to Hell.
 
Maybe I’m too simple to engage in a conversation like this, but I think my first thought would be “why in the world have we gone 2000 years without anyone ever imagining such a thing?”. Is Vishnu so uncaring or so oblivious that he lets two millennia go by without bothering to tell a single soul the truth?

Not credible.

And in our modern world in which we find it so much easier to imagine aliens from outer space than anything spiritual, it’s even easier to believe Jesus was an alien who could take on any shape he wanted and self-resurrect who came down to give us some ethic instruction lest we be forever totally corrupted and fierce.

Regardless, anybody can fantasize anything, but at some point there needs to be some basis for belief beyond one’s imagination.
 
However, the risen Christ left followers in charge of His church and the Catholic Faith is build of the teachings of these apostles!
 
Hmmm. I guess my concern is that we Catholics have become so used to arguing with materialists and Protestants that we’ve forgotten what it’s like to engage with someone with an internally consistent religion system that they assume instead of ours.

For example, @Dan_Defender says that a demon’s motivation could only be the damnation of souls. I doubt that Hindus would say that. A Muslim would also say that the Trinity is polytheistic according to their definition, which would be different than ours. Why I’m bringing this up is not that it’s probably true, I’m bringing it up so I can better engage with others.

For example “Jesus is Vishnu” is something some Hindus do believe. Or perhaps an other God or their version of a demon, a “rakshasa.”

So, for example let’s say I’m arguing (politely) with person from religion Y. I say, we know that Jesus rose from the dead, therefor Christianity." He comes back with “yeah, but your religion is evil look at X teaching, that just confirms that Jesus was Z spiritual being from my own religious system.” I’m honestly at a loss at how to respond to that.
 
In this scenario, how would Vishnu gain anything by sending Jesus to Earth? I mean Jesus taught that HE is the Truth, the Way and the Life, no one else.
HE outright claims to be more than any of these “lesser gods”.
Jesus’s followers reject the notion of reincarnation so that does not make sense either. Also the sequence of events is not quite the way you stated. Jesus did not resurrect from the dead and THEN started teaching.

HE started teaching and HIS resurrection is proof that HIS teaching are true. And oh by the way HE did quite plainly spelled out that HE would be killed and that HE would resurrect. In other words HE claim to have power over life and death. His and others as HE proved by resurrecting dead people many times.
Ask yourself: How many Vishnu followers have come back from the dead?
 
Non-Catholic, non-philosopher here, so take my answers with a few tons of salt. However:
The Atheist did not say this, but I’m bringing it up. For example, Jesus is accused of being inhabited by a demon during his ministry. Which he then says “a house can not…” But, taken simply, after all the evidence for the resurrection is laid out, someone could just say “yeah, it makes sense that a demon infested man rose from the dead and spread false teaching.” Which I find difficult to logically refute.

I think this is a reason why we Christians have such difficulty converting Hindu’s to Christianity. Instead of arguing that a natural explanation can explain the resurrection, they come up with a theological one from their own tradition, “He was a guru,” “He was an incarnation of Vishnu,” “He was…”
Click to expand...
In response to pagan explanations of the Resurrection, Jimmy Akin, an apologist from this website, makes the point that Christianity destroyed the pagan religions of Europe. How to do Apologetics Against Neopaganism | Catholic Answers

It would be very strange if pagan gods deliberately endangered their own sects by falsely creating the Catholic Church, which opposes other religions, says they’re wrong, and tries to convert people away from them.

Also, this would go along with @jack63 and his point about Occam’s Razor. If Jesus claims to be God and then rises from the dead, it’s very odd to interpret His words outside their context, and claim that He’s something else. Especially when that “something else” is not consistent with what He and His followers taught.
For example, off the top of my head, I could make the theological refutation to the resurrection proving Christianity true by arguing that: “Vishnu sent one of his best helpers to incarnate as Jesus, at which point he did all of the things that Christians believe he did and then rose from the dead. However, you have to understand that Vishnu had to make a more civilized form of religion that was closer to his heart while at the same time non-Hindu’s would find it convincing. So, he lied a little about his nature to get people closer to himself more quickly after they reincarnated. The next life good Christians can be Hindus, but right now the Greeks need something more suited to them. Next life, they will find out the truth, not this one.”
Click to expand...
  1. Christians have philosophical proofs for the existence of the God described in Classical Theism. See, for example, Edward Feser’s “Five Proofs for the Existence of God”. Do Vishnu, demons, aliens, Scientology’s R6 implant, or other supernatural explanations for the Resurrection have equivalent proofs for their existence? The burden lies on the atheist critic asserting the existence of some other entity that allegedly caused the Resurrection. If the atheist wants to explain the Resurrection with E.T. or Vishnu, he’d better be ready with proofs that E.T. or Vishnu exist. (And if the atheist does prove the existence of Vishnu, why is he still an atheist?)
  2. There are philosophical and theological reasons to think that God cannot lie. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/why-god-cant-lie-or-sin.
 
Last edited:
For what it’s worth, some people in philosophy of religion also propose moral tests of revelation. God, being omnibenevolent, would not reveal evil doctrines. But this is a subfield with its own debates that I’m not familiar with. Perhaps someone who is can chime in.
 
Last edited:
Yep said:
So, [Vishnu] lied a little about his nature to get people closer to himself more quickly after they reincarnated.
Click to expand...
Umm… Vishnu is held to be ‘absolute truth.’ For this explanation to be reasonable, you’d have to accept the assertion that “Absolute truth… tells lies.” Not too terribly convincing an argument. 😉
 
Last edited:
I think debates are a waste of time. We know what we believe, and why. Or, we should. Point: No atheist has ever willing, joyfully died for atheism. Atheism did not build or sustain western civilization. No hospitals, no universities, no science. If you pay attention, their “religion” tears down rather than builds. Atheism is well described in the first chapters of the Book of Wisdom.

It is called “Wisdom” for a reason.

FYI: I do not “consume” the bilge that the media attemtps to program us with. I prefer independent, critical thinking.
 
If you have YouTube check out the shroud of Turin this is historical proof that Christ has risen from the dead scientists have been studying this archaeological artifact for the past I don’t know 30 or 40 years quite interesting and it is a mystery watch the Shroud of Turin that should give you some idea and maybe some hope God bless
 
po18guy said:
Atheism did not build or sustain western civilization. No hospitals, no universities, no science. If you pay attention, their “religion” tears down rather than builds.
Click to expand...
I was a rather militant atheist for about a decade. Not only does it not do any good for society, it does great psychologIcal damage as well. Myself along with several other atheist friends became bitter, angry, envious and outright mean towards religious people.
 
nightshade said:
Myself along with several other atheist friends became bitter, angry, envious and outright mean towards religious people.
Click to expand...
Never find religious people being bitter, angry, envious and outright mean to other people, obviously.
 
Agreeing with the first reply, the mission of Jesus’s resurrection had created such goodness in the world that it should be impossible to see it as evil. Remember that the Apostles and the early Christians acted on Jesus’s teachings before the Passion, and if it was just an evil spirit that resurrected the Lord and left, that evil spirit would gain nothing because Jesus had taught so much to the disciples before His Passion. The early Christians would be busy caring for the poor, the persecuted, the abandoned infants, and that’s how the early Christians would convert Rome.

Take this other example. The Lady of Guadalupe could be claimed as the work of Satan, but what would Satan gain from converting millions of Aztecs? Before our Mother revealed herself to the Aztecs, they were sacrificing their babies to their gods. Why would Satan want to stop the sacrifices of babies which he definitely wants. Therefore, the Lady of Guadalupe is definitely a work of a heavenly mission because it saved lives and helped spread the faith.
 
Interesting. The most basic argument for Christianity I have heard is that if Jesus rose from the dead than Christianity mist be true. There were witnesses to the ressurrection. So you can’t really argue right???

Personally I still question the truth in Christianity. I am actually watching a debate between a Christian and Atheist right now and they are now arguing about the validity and historicity of the Ressurrection accounts. I am trying to understand for myself and figure out for myself if Christianity has enough evidence and historicity for me to be able to truly accept it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top