List of Proofs For vs. Proofs Against the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, & Ascension

[AyJSimon]

AyJSimon;12910255:

I think there’s a difference here in that the Muslims you’re talking about are hundreds of years removed from Muhammad. They don’t actually have claimed to have seen him on the horse, and they have no physical evidence that he didn’t. For the apostles and the first generation of the Church, we have a different case. We have early attestation that it occurred, from a time when it could have been disproved.

Muslim martyrdom isn’t a new phenomenon. The supremely moral character of dying in defense of the faith is a foundational belief of Islam, and has been going on since Islam began.

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt;12910178:

Actually,his Resurrection played a large role in terms of vindicating him.

He was crucified.And crucifixion for Romans meant a man is no longer a good man,he is forsaken by the gods.And for Jews,being crucified,especially by pagans,was a sign that the man was forsaken by God and every status as a good man would be instantly over once crucifixion started.

The Resurrection,however,was God himself vindicating Jesus,thus reversing his shame and prooving the accuracy and authenticity of his claims.

Then why didn’t the Romans write volumes about it? This would have been miraculous to pagans. Remember, according to the accounts used in Christianity, it was Romans who witnessed the resurrection. Not a single one of Jesus’ followers are reputed to have seen the actual event…only the aftermath.

 

[NormalBeliever]

NormalBeliever;12910616:

Then why didn’t the Romans write volumes about it? This would have been miraculous to pagans. Remember, according to the accounts used in Christianity, it was Romans who witnessed the resurrection. Not a single one of Jesus’ followers are reputed to have seen the actual event…only the aftermath.

The Romans didn’t write volumes about it because crucifixion was obscene.When they crucify someone,they don’t care about them.And to claim someone was vindicated from crucifixion and was God himself would have been impossible to believe to the Romans.

And no,the Romans didn’t witness it.They witnessed the angel roll away the stone.That easily drove them away.They also didn’t tell anyone else this because they didn’t want to reveal Jesus was vindicated.

Also,keep in mind the angel is likely to only have rolled away the stone because witnesses were supposed to be allowed in.It is likely God resurrected Jesus and simply sent him away or Jesus sent himself away.

It isn’t necesarry for the Romans to have witnessed the Risen Christ .

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt;12911066:

The Romans didn’t write volumes about it because crucifixion was obscene.When they crucify someone,they don’t care about them.And to claim someone was vindicated from crucifixion and was God himself would have been impossible to believe to the Romans.

And no,the Romans didn’t witness it.They witnessed the angel roll away the stone.That easily drove them away.They also didn’t tell anyone else this because they didn’t want to reveal Jesus was vindicated.

Also,keep in mind the angel is likely to only have rolled away the stone because witnesses were supposed to be allowed in.It is likely God resurrected Jesus and simply sent him away or Jesus sent himself away.

It isn’t necesarry for the Romans to have witnessed the Risen Christ .

Thus we see why such an event is a matter of faith.

 

[NormalBeliever]

NormalBeliever;12911078:

Thus we see why such an event is a matter of faith.

Actually,the fact the Romans couldn’t have believed in Christianity because of the claim God was shamefully crucified is what actually makes Christianity more likely to be based on actual evidence.

 

[GEddie]

NormalBeliever;12910616:

Then why didn’t the Romans write volumes about it? This would have been miraculous to pagans. Remember, according to the accounts used in Christianity, it was Romans who witnessed the resurrection. Not a single one of Jesus’ followers are reputed to have seen the actual event…only the aftermath.

Because they wanted Him forgotten. And if He remained dead, but people were saying that He rose again, producing the body would guarantee He was forgotten. They couldn’t.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[rakovsky]

Let me respond here to some of your replies on my affirmative proofs, particularly those of Geddie, Old Celt, and SonofMan

First however I want to emphasize that I am not saying that the Resurrection or a certain “alternate explanation” for it did or didn’t happen, just that I am taking a critical approach to the proofs and disproofs below.

**
Old Celt accidentally touched on Lewis’ Dilemma, my 2nd Proof:**, when he said:

No, they were not mentally unbalanced. They truly believed in what Jesus taught. However, their teacher was gone and they wished to perpetuate those teachings [when they said He resurrected].

In Old Celt’s view, they weren’t delusional, but rather they fabricated the stories about how He resurrected after His death to pass on His teachings. Actually though I see another alternative. It’s true that the post-resurrection stories are so extreme that they cannot be delusions, like Thomas touching Jesus. So if they aren’t real events, then they were either made up by the apostles or later by the gospel writers. Nonetheless, there are so many miracle stories in the New Testament- and not just apparitions of Jesus - that I think it’s most likely that the gospel writers weren’t the ones to make them up.
**
SonofMan questioned my 3RD PROOF, the apostles’ testimony of the Resurrection as confirmed by their undergoing persecution**, because he said:

It is said that none of the apostles suffered martyrdom and the stories about them being martyred are all legendary. Say they were actually killed though, how do you know that they were not simply assassinated/executed as opposed to dying as willing martyrs?

In fact, we have multiple nonChristian historians from the first two centuries like Josephus and Pliny that talk about the killing of the early Christians. Nero killed many Christians in Rome. St. Ignatius willingly went to the lions, telling his friends to avoid interfering with the government to stop his martyrdom. Knowing the risk of persecution, the Christians had the option of giving up Christianity but they didn’t do so.

But see my discussion on DISPROOF #2 later below.

Old Celt also touched on the issue of the apostles’ testimony, saying:

Not a single one of Jesus’ followers are reputed to have seen the actual event…only the aftermath.

However, I don’t see that as decisive. If the disciples are to be believed, then their claims that they saw, talked with, and in some cases observed physical interactions with Jesus in person up close, show that the resurrection happened. If the disciples are not to be believed, then even if they said that they happened to have witnessed the resurrection and saw Jesus coming out of the tomb or something then such testimony wouldn’t be reliable. In other words, the disciples’ testimony is sufficient proof of the resurrection if it’s believed to be honest and real.

GEDDIE wrote about the issue of the empty tomb, my 4TH PROOF

The issue surrounding the Resurrection is not that His friends were later persecuted for their teachings, but what became of His human body! Persecution of those who teach something new is in itself, nothing new, sadly. But the Resurrection was not just a new teaching, it was a physical event, that if it were disproven, nobody would die for it.

And the alternatives to a resurrection are even harder to swallow. That men who had been too frightened to stand for Him earlier would defy a Roman guard to somehow open a sealed tomb, unwrap a heavy, bloody dead body, and move said body while escaping the eyes of that guard – and leave no trace of their activity – makes no sense.

**I do think the tomb was empty because it’s attested in detail in all four gospels and Acts, and like you said, if the body remained there, resurrection claims could be easily disproven. ** Besides, I don’t find the concept of an empty tomb to be, in itself, necessarily miraculous or scientifically inconceivable.

So how could it rationally leave the tomb without a miracle?

1. Sympathizers of Christians could have removed it between the Friday burial and the time on Saturday the guards were posted.
2. They could have overwhelmed and forcibly bribed the guards.
3. There could have been some other much more unlikely event like the guards being part of a conspiracy, the guards never actually being placed there in the first place, or the body being removed after the guards finished their assignment and left on Sunday as intended.

Yes, (3) is very unlikely, but a resurrection is also scientifically next to impossible.

I do question Geddie’s assertion and that of some theologians that Jesus’ followers were too weak and scared to overwhelm the guards. Jesus had many followers (maybe 70), he had instructed them to carry daggers, Peter allegedly cut one of the guards’ ears when they came for Jesus, and the guards at the tomb were probably few in number. I question that the followers who would have taken the body actually escaped the eyes of the guards and couldn’t carry a body away secretly at night.
**
Next, old Celt and Geddie argued over whether Jesus’ teachings had a precedent in the Old Testament **or were they something newly revealed and worth dying over. However, I don’t see the issue of “precedents” as relevant. Jesus could be promoting Himself as a Messiah fully within existing concepts from scripture (and Yes, Isaiah 53 does describe a killed, resurrected Messiah), and yet Jesus could still get a following.

 

[rakovsky]

Here I will respond to comments on the Disproofs I listed by Free Ever, Larry1700, and Tom from MD.

**
Then, FREE EVER asked about the early Christians’ martyrdom, which goes to my 2ND DISPROOF of the resurrection.**

If your assumption is correct, why did the ten original apostles and other early Christians suffer martyrdom? Was it for wealth? NO, all died penniless. Was it for popularity, fame, or celebrity status? NO, other than the early written Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John which are with us today, the majority of others (individually named) who believed in Our Lord’s resurrection are forgotten footnotes in history. Was it because they were mentally unbalanced? OK, perhaps a few as within any defined population (just speculating); however the vast, vast majority - NO.

One could look at the example of other persecuted sects: early gnostic Christians, Mormons, or guru sects in Asia. The inner group of the sect understood that the religious writings included fabrications and mythical hearsay, but they benefited from leading a sect and wanted to do so even when it risked persecution.

I question how unprofitable the disciples were, because they taught that followers should give money tot he Church in Acts. Paul took up a collection for the main group of Christians in Jerusalem, and in the gospels we see how the disciples are house guests eating and drinking with tax collectors and wealthy pharisees. Meanwhile, the outer group of early sects really did believe the teachings and underwent persecution without knowing whether the teachings were fabricated. Chris Sandoval writes about this in his chapter “A Skeptical Scenario” in his book Can Christians Prove the Resurrection?, which you can read for free online. I am sure there was persecution, but Sandoval questions how severely Judea’s Christians were persecuted for the first several decades, since their leader James was only killed by the Sanhedrin in the 60’s AD and the Sanhedrin leader was penalized by the Romans for this.

I would say something similar to** Larry**, when he writes:

the REASON they followed Jesus–to their deaths–is because they firmly believed He was the Son of God. Had he not risen from the dead, they would have concluded that he could not have been what he said he was.

Perhaps the leaders of the sect followed Jesus despite fabricating stories because they wanted to have a sect like the early gnostic Christians did who fabricated tall tales in their apocrypha. Meanwhile the broader group of followers did believe He rose from the dead based on the apostles’ stories and mass hallucinations like those of of Indian gurus.

**Tom from MD **made a good point when he wrote:

I think there’s a difference here in that the Muslims you’re talking about are hundreds of years removed from Muhammad. They don’t actually have claimed to have seen him on the horse, and they have no physical evidence that he didn’t. For the apostles and the first generation of the Church, we have a different case. We have early attestation that it occurred, from a time when it could have been disproved.

These kinds of Muslim stories probably already circulated 100 years or so after Mohammed, since they are in the Hadiths. I think the Quran, which is even earlier, talks about angels talking to Mohammed. So timewise a comparison can be drawn to the 2nd century of Christians.
But you are making a good point because that’s different than the first century Christians who would have direct contact with the apostles. For some of the miracles, there’s a similarity. Only a group of close apostles saw the up close appearances of Jesus, while few people (maybe just one) saw Mohammed’s miracles. For other miracles there’s the possibility of mass hallucination like the mass visions of an Asian guru, assuming that the Biblical mass appearances weren’t fabrications.

 

[rakovsky]

In passing, I will remind people that I am not actually proposing an explanation, just considering them.

Finally, NormalBeliever had an interesting discussion here:

He was crucified.And crucifixion for Romans meant a man is no longer a good man,he is forsaken by the gods.And for Jews,being crucified,especially by pagans,was a sign that the man was forsaken by God and every status as a good man would be instantly over once crucifixion started. The Resurrection,however,was God himself vindicating Jesus,thus reversing his shame and prooving the accuracy and authenticity of his claims.

Could another explanation be that the disciples fabricated the claim of resurrection to create that idea of vindication?

Next, Norman wrote in response to someone else:

Then why didn’t the Romans write volumes about it? This would have been miraculous to pagans. Remember, according to the accounts used in Christianity, it was Romans who witnessed the resurrection.

The Romans didn’t write volumes about it because crucifixion was obscene.When they crucify someone,they don’t care about them.And** to claim someone was vindicated from crucifixion** and was God himself would have been impossible to believe to the Romans.

And no,the Romans didn’t witness it.They witnessed the angel roll away the stone.That easily drove them away.They also didn’t tell anyone else this because they didn’t want to reveal Jesus was vindicated.

The Romans didn’t write volumes on Christianity in the first century because their society wasn’t a witness to the Resurrection or the appearances soon thereafter. The earliest Judean Christians were generally Jewish and the converts from the gentiles of that time weren’t devoted to writing literature which at that time was done in narrower circles.

What about the Romans who witnessed the Resurrection? Well, first it isn’t very clear whether the guards were temple guards or Roman ones. But still it raises a very good question. If the guards saw a real angel who made them leave, then why didn’t they become believers instead of spreading the story, according to Matthew, that the disciples stole their body when they slept. I have a hard time answering that question. Perhaps:
(A) the story about the angel was fabricated by the gospel writer
(B) the guards thought it was a strong, normal soldier and didn’t recognize that it was an angel, in which case how do we know that it really was one? And yet if they thought it was a regular soldier, why wouldn’t they try to overpower him?
(C) the guards thought it was an angel, but didn’t really understand the angel’s purpose, whether it was good or bad, or how to feel about it. So they just left without being converted.

Additionally, you said that the Romans would find it impossible to believe God was crucified and vindicated through resurrection. But I am not sure about that. The Romans already portrayed their emperor as a God and didn’t they have myths about deities who died and returned to life (like perhaps Attis, Dionysius or Adonis- but perhaps those are later, post-Christian myths)?

Besides that, didn’t you contradict yourself when you wrote on one hand that the soldiers didn’t reveal Jesus’ resurrection or the angel because it would vindicate him, but on the other hand you wrote that the Romans would find it “impossible to believe” that someone was “vindicated from Crucifixion”. Maybe you mean that the Roman guards weren’t disposed to believe in the resurrection and vindication but then they believed it by seeing it firsthand. But then why wouldn’t they become believers instead of trying to hide it?

Next, Norman writes:

Actually,the fact the Romans couldn’t have believed in Christianity because of the claim God was shamefully crucified is what actually makes Christianity more likely to be based on actual evidence.

However, as I mentioned previously, I think that there were some Roman deities that were considered to have been killed and resurrected. In any case, I don’t think that Jesus was just a totally fictional figure concocted carefully and intentionally from the beginning with the best qualities to make the Romans accept him. I think that Jesus was a real person, and were it up to Him entirely, He naturally wouldn’t have chosen crucifixion, since even in the gospels He asks God for another way besides martyrdom in the Garden of Gethsemane.

 

[oldcelt]

In passing, I will remind people that I am not actually proposing an explanation, just considering them.

Finally, NormalBeliever had an interesting discussion here:

Could another explanation be that the disciples fabricated the claim of resurrection to create that idea of vindication?

Next, Norman wrote in response to someone else:

The Romans didn’t write volumes on Christianity in the first century because their society wasn’t a witness to the Resurrection or the appearances soon thereafter. The earliest Judean Christians were generally Jewish and the converts from the gentiles of that time weren’t devoted to writing literature which at that time was done in narrower circles.

What about the Romans who witnessed the Resurrection? Well, first it isn’t very clear whether the guards were temple guards or Roman ones. But still it raises a very good question. If the guards saw a real angel who made them leave, then why didn’t they become believers instead of spreading the story, according to Matthew, that the disciples stole their body when they slept. I have a hard time answering that question. Perhaps:
(A) the story about the angel was fabricated by the gospel writer
(B) the guards thought it was a strong, normal soldier and didn’t recognize that it was an angel, in which case how do we know that it really was one? And yet if they thought it was a regular soldier, why wouldn’t they try to overpower him?
(C) the guards thought it was an angel, but didn’t really understand the angel’s purpose, whether it was good or bad, or how to feel about it. So they just left without being converted.

Additionally, you said that the Romans would find it impossible to believe God was crucified and vindicated through resurrection. But I am not sure about that. The Romans already portrayed their emperor as a God and didn’t they have myths about deities who died and returned to life (like perhaps Attis, Dionysius or Adonis- but perhaps those are later, post-Christian myths)?

Besides that, didn’t you contradict yourself when you wrote on one hand that the soldiers didn’t reveal Jesus’ resurrection or the angel because it would vindicate him, but on the other hand you wrote that the Romans would find it “impossible to believe” that someone was “vindicated from Crucifixion”. Maybe you mean that the Roman guards weren’t disposed to believe in the resurrection and vindication but then they believed it by seeing it firsthand. But then why wouldn’t they become believers instead of trying to hide it?

Next, Norman writes:

However, as I mentioned previously, I think that there were some Roman deities that were considered to have been killed and resurrected. In any case, I don’t think that Jesus was just a totally fictional figure concocted carefully and intentionally from the beginning with the best qualities to make the Romans accept him. I think that Jesus was a real person, and were it up to Him entirely, He naturally wouldn’t have chosen crucifixion, since even in the gospels He asks God for another way besides martyrdom in the Garden of Gethsemane.

The Celts believed in resurrection a 1000 years, at least before Jesus. Doesn’t prove, or disprove anything. Humans fear death and hope for some sort of out…well, good searching.

 

[rakovsky]

Here I will list some ways we could get a stronger opinion about the Resurrection. Let me know what you think about them.

1. Time Travel.
We don’t have the tehnology
**
2. Clairvoyance / Remote viewing of the event**
It seems unreliable or subjective. The clairvoyants typically see Jesus as a magical figure, but they can be viewing Jesus as a concept, they can be seeing other peoples’ perceptions of Jesus, or they could just be unearthing their own subconscious perceptions and beliefs about Jesus rather than the actual individual. One clairvoyant said:

I mean, he certainly was a very special man. The difference between Remote Viewing Jesus and anybody in time, I mean anybody who you’re gonna Remote View who was that far back in time, you have a folklore surrounding that and a lot of writing surrounding it, so you have to weed through that too.
remoteviewing.com/remote-viewing-news-articles/media-interviews/the-fatboss

**
4. Text criticism that could reveal it was fabricated**
The texts have been mulled over so many times and debated that I doubt anything new, definite, and conclusive will be shown from it about the Resurrection one way or the other.
**
5. Jesus could appear like He did to Thomas, Paul, and others**
Some saints have said they witnessed appearances of Jesus. What do you think of them? Do you know any modern appearances that could be particularly reliable? I worry though that the appearances could also be hallucinations or delusionary, especially if the person is psychologically prepared to witness one.

1. The Shroud of Turin could be investigated to show that it has miraculous properties. Some scholars claim that it was made through a supernatural process like an intense light. (See: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077341/The-Turin-shroud-DOES-miraculous-powers–Whether-genuine-not.html#ixzz3XapMxzc3)
   The problem is that scholars sharply debate the topic at length and without coming to a consensus. The scholarly opinion as a whole is inconclusive beyond saying that it is a shroud with the image of a real person with Jesus’ wounds from Europe or the Middle East before the 15th century. Of course there is a real answer, and I read different articles about it, but it looks like they don’t even have a good answer for how the shroud image was formed or whether it was from the 1st, 6th, or 14th centuries.

 

[oldcelt]

Here I will list some ways we could get a stronger opinion about the Resurrection. Let me know what you think about them.

1. Time Travel.
We don’t have the tehnology
**
2. Clairvoyance / Remote viewing of the event**
It seems unreliable or subjective. The clairvoyants typically see Jesus as a magical figure, but they can be viewing Jesus as a concept, they can be seeing other peoples’ perceptions of Jesus, or they could just be unearthing their own subconscious perceptions and beliefs about Jesus rather than the actual individual. One clairvoyant said:

**
4. Text criticism that could reveal it was fabricated**
The texts have been mulled over so many times and debated that I doubt anything new, definite, and conclusive will be shown from it about the Resurrection one way or the other.
**
5. Jesus could appear like He did to Thomas, Paul, and others**
Some saints have said they witnessed appearances of Jesus. What do you think of them? Do you know any modern appearances that could be particularly reliable? I worry though that the appearances could also be hallucinations or delusionary, especially if the person is psychologically prepared to witness one.

1. The Shroud of Turin could be investigated to show that it has miraculous properties. Some scholars claim that it was made through a supernatural process like an intense light. (See: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077341/The-Turin-shroud-DOES-miraculous-powers–Whether-genuine-not.html#ixzz3XapMxzc3)
   The problem is that scholars sharply debate the topic at length and without coming to a consensus. The scholarly opinion as a whole is inconclusive beyond saying that it is a shroud with the image of a real person with Jesus’ wounds from Europe or the Middle East before the 15th century. Of course there is a real answer, and I read different articles about it, but it looks like they don’t even have a good answer for how the shroud image was formed or whether it was from the 1st, 6th, or 14th centuries.

All interesting thoughts. but no proof.

 

[SonOfMan]

The Muslim martyrdom example is way off. I’ve read accounts where family members of suicide bombers are financially rewarded. None of the early Apostles or martyred Christian family members were financially rewarded.

As I said in an earlier post, it is claimed that the apostles never actually suffered martydom and the stories about them dying are largely myth.

Secondly, Christianity was proving to be a powerful political movement, so powerful that the Emperor of Rome thought it could overthrow them and start an uprising. So, there was the reward of having a lot of power. To this day the Pope influences millions of Catholics worldwide.

SonofMan questioned my 3RD PROOF, the apostles’ testimony of the Resurrection as confirmed by their undergoing persecution

, because he said:

In fact, we have multiple nonChristian historians from the first two centuries like Josephus and Pliny that talk about the killing of the early Christians. Nero killed many Christians in Rome. St. Ignatius willingly went to the lions, telling his friends to avoid interfering with the government to stop his martyrdom. Knowing the risk of persecution, the Christians had the option of giving up Christianity but they didn’t do so.

Josephus was born in 37 A.D., he couldn’t have witnessed the Apostles dying. Maybe he saw Christians who had no contact with Jesus, who came later, being put to death, but that isn’t as powerful because as another poster pointed out, even Muslims die for their faith and as Christians, we don’t believe they are correct, so that is a problem.

There is also the dilemna that scholars believe that Josephus’ writings were tampered with, or forged, by Christians.

 

[Micosil]

I’ve noticed many here have made a comparison to crazed Islamist suicide bombers dying and “being martyred” for their faith. There is a very big difference here – while the early Christian martyrs and the Apostles may have died for their faith, as do Islamist suicide bombers, Christians martyrs don’t wipe out an entire bus or supermarket as they do so. Christian martyrs don’t tend to have innocent blood on their hands.

I guess the Christian martyrdom could be seen as selfless, and perhaps a crazed terrorist Islamist’s suicide could be seen as selfish.

I say this with the utmost respect for the Islamic faith, and the numerous Muslim friends I have, mind you.

 

[NormalBeliever]

In passing, I will remind people that I am not actually proposing an explanation, just considering them.

Finally, NormalBeliever had an interesting discussion here:

Could another explanation be that the disciples fabricated the claim of resurrection to create that idea of vindication?

Next, Norman wrote in response to someone else:

The Romans didn’t write volumes on Christianity in the first century because their society wasn’t a witness to the Resurrection or the appearances soon thereafter. The earliest Judean Christians were generally Jewish and the converts from the gentiles of that time weren’t devoted to writing literature which at that time was done in narrower circles.

What about the Romans who witnessed the Resurrection? Well, first it isn’t very clear whether the guards were temple guards or Roman ones. But still it raises a very good question. If the guards saw a real angel who made them leave, then why didn’t they become believers instead of spreading the story, according to Matthew, that the disciples stole their body when they slept. I have a hard time answering that question. Perhaps:
(A) the story about the angel was fabricated by the gospel writer
(B) the guards thought it was a strong, normal soldier and didn’t recognize that it was an angel, in which case how do we know that it really was one? And yet if they thought it was a regular soldier, why wouldn’t they try to overpower him?
(C) the guards thought it was an angel, but didn’t really understand the angel’s purpose, whether it was good or bad, or how to feel about it. So they just left without being converted.

Additionally, you said that the Romans would find it impossible to believe God was crucified and vindicated through resurrection. But I am not sure about that. The Romans already portrayed their emperor as a God and didn’t they have myths about deities who died and returned to life (like perhaps Attis, Dionysius or Adonis- but perhaps those are later, post-Christian myths)?

Besides that, didn’t you contradict yourself when you wrote on one hand that the soldiers didn’t reveal Jesus’ resurrection or the angel because it would vindicate him, but on the other hand you wrote that the Romans would find it “impossible to believe” that someone was “vindicated from Crucifixion”. Maybe you mean that the Roman guards weren’t disposed to believe in the resurrection and vindication but then they believed it by seeing it firsthand. But then why wouldn’t they become believers instead of trying to hide it?

Next, Norman writes:

However, as I mentioned previously, I think that there were some Roman deities that were considered to have been killed and resurrected. In any case, I don’t think that Jesus was just a totally fictional figure concocted carefully and intentionally from the beginning with the best qualities to make the Romans accept him. I think that Jesus was a real person, and were it up to Him entirely, He naturally wouldn’t have chosen crucifixion, since even in the gospels He asks God for another way besides martyrdom in the Garden of Gethsemane.

No.They couldn’t have fabricated the Resurrection because it vindicates Jesus.

Because all Jews believed the Resurrection would happen at the end times and to believe it would occur to someone before the end of the world was not only a very hard thing to come up with,but it was such a hybrid mutation of Jewish beliefs that it is very likely the disciples couldn’t have made it up.

Another,bigger reason,why they couldn’t have used a claim of Resurrection is because it is impossible for either Jew or Roman to believe this without evidence.

The Romans pagans held to a view of the afterlife in which after you die your spirit gets seperated from your body forever.The Romans honestly believed this and also thought any idea of your spirit coming back into your body is unbeliavable.

The Romans believed the body was shameful and was something which everyone must wish to reject because it makes humans vulnearable and because the body itself is a source of suffering.

Now the Apostles claimed not only did God rise from the dead via resurrection but that everybody else would also rise in the future by their spirit reuniting with the body.This was a teaching completely unbeliavable and unacceptable to the Romans.

If the Apostles did make up the Resurrection,then they couldn’t have spread Christianity at all.

It is much easier for the Apostles to have claimed Jesus was only ‘‘raptured’’ away like Elijah was.This would have been much easier for the Jews and even the pagan Romans to believe then the Resurrection.

Unless,of course,the Apostles had some type of real experience that made them honestly believe Jesus Resurrected from the dead.

‘‘If the guards saw a real angel who made them leave, then why didn’t they become believers instead of spreading the story,’’

Because there was an earthquake beforehand.The Romans could have fled from the earthquake and from the angel both or seperately.

But also,if the Romans did see an angel,it is likely they thought it was a human or some apparition of a ghost instead of believing a Resurrection had occured.Thus,they didn’t have to convert.

‘‘Besides that, didn’t you contradict yourself when you wrote on one hand that the soldiers didn’t reveal Jesus’ resurrection or the angel because it would vindicate him, but on the other hand you wrote that the Romans would find it “impossible to believe” that someone was “vindicated from Crucifixion”.’’

Actually I was talking about how the very idea of crucifixion was unacceptable to the Romans thus making a false Christianity impossible to believe.

 

[NormalBeliever]

The Celts believed in resurrection a 1000 years, at least before Jesus. Doesn’t prove, or disprove anything. Humans fear death and hope for some sort of out…well, good searching.

Any sources?

Also,even if the Celts did have a belief in deities rising from the dead,it wasn’t a Resurrection.

The Jews and Apostles believed that Resurrection was God glorifying a body and making it beyond a natural body.A regular rising from the dead is not a Resurrection since the body isn’t glorified nor was it done by God.

Jews and the Apostles believed something completely different.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As I said in an earlier post, it is claimed that the apostles never actually suffered martydom and the stories about them dying are largely myth.

There’s significantly less evidence for this than for the validity of their martyrdom. There are records, both Christian records and secular coliseum records, noting the martyrdom of innumerable Christians.

Secondly, Christianity was proving to be a powerful political movement, so powerful that the Emperor of Rome thought it could overthrow them and start an uprising. So, there was the reward of having a lot of power. To this day the Pope influences millions of Catholics worldwide.

An illogical claim. People who do things for power do their best to hold onto that power. During this time, the average reign of a Pope was something like two years, maybe three. Taking up the office was essentially placing upon yourself the mantle of suffering a painful death. A person desiring power would not take on the role given its almost-certain outcome.

As for the claims of the Apostles making it up, I’m sorry, but that is just stupid. The historical evidence we have, both religious and secular, speaks of widespread persecution of Christians at several points in the early years of the Church. The very act of -being- a Christian was illegal under Roman rule, and punishable by death. Despite all of this, Christianity flourished. We have historical evidence that the apostles suffered and died for the faith, you can chose to ignore this evidence if you want, or claim that it was tampered with; but such claims are pure conjecture and have no evidence to support them. Had Christ not be raised, it would have been easy enough to bring out his body and show it off. If the Apostles had stolen his body, then there’s no way they would have suffered being skinned or cooked alive, all while singing the praises of the man who’s divinity they knew to be false.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Also,as for the claim the Apostles dying is no different from Muslims dying,there actually is a difference.

The Apostles gave up their lives and were martyred because they believed they were witnesses of the Resurrection.That is,they handled the proof of the Resurrection and the truth,whether it was real or a lie.

They all died because they claimed Jesus did rise from the dead.If they lied,they very easily could have recanted and would not have died because they knew what they were saying was a lie.

The Apostles were in a situation where they claimed they were the witnesses of a supernatural proof prooving that Jesus was God.They died exactly for the reason that they claimed they saw Jesus.

At least how I see it,there is no reason for the Apostles to lie.The argument the Apostles died for a lie the same way Muslims die for their religion or other people die for some vague principle cannot simply be correct.

Another thing is that the Apostles and other Christians also were presecuted by fellow citizens in the Roman Empire.

If you wanted to become a Christian you had to give up a comfortable life and be prepared to be persecuted by your fellow neighbors and also be prepared to give up your social life and status as well.The Apostles weren’t only putting their lives at risk for Christianity,but also many other things as well and they were commited to that.

The only way I can see the Apostles giving up their lifes and social status is if they honestly did have an experience that changed their lives and made them believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Larry1700]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry1700 View Post

Muslims have Judaism AND Christianity - yet they still gladly die, martyr themselves, and kills others for the belief that Muhammad was the last true prophet of God and flew to heaven on a winged horse.

One of the many examples that I had in mind…thank you.

AyJSimon;12910255:

One of the many examples that I had in mind…thank you.

Thanks, but I don’t think this is my quote, and I certainly don’t understand the phrase “Muslims have Judaism AND Christianity.” I’m not sure how I got “credited” for this, so I’d like the “credit” given to the real author.

 

[Larry1700]

Okay, I see at least one other quote that is falsely/mistakenly credited to me. It appears that oldcelt is somehow incorrectly using the QUOTE tags.

Before responding to something I supposedly said PLEASE VERIFY THAT IT WAS ME WHO SAID IT by clicking on the blue arrow.