Resurrection/Jesus proofs

[Servant19]

Beautiful Garand, thank you for sharing.
It’s a blessing to hear stories of God working through so many so intimately

This struck me from your post:

I cannot speak for all Catholics but for me the history is icing on the cake for my faith. My faith is not based on history, science or intellectualization because I don’t believe God can be intellectualized.

I agree with you totally. I would pose the perspective that your intimate interaction with God may have become intellectualised as some point. We should find validity and rationality and reason to our spiritual dances with God. This provides an understanding and provides drive to attract ourself closer to Him through conscious efforts, especially in the realms of selfless service and altruistic pursuits.

Sometimes an intellectualisation can provide a spark of faith. Most often it is the other way round for “the longing of every human heart is to commune with its Creator” and once that first step is made towards that communion, the confirmations and grace abounds, and that’s when the real magic happens

God bless you dear friend

 

[daler]

OK but just to point out that it’s quite possible for non-fictional people to appear in works of fiction.

Kaninchen,
. When we consider the deep wisdom which has appeared in the universe through religious myths, whether actual or fictional, there is still a Source which is to be reckoned with which has brought these truths into being.

. What has greater effect upon the human condition? That which is physical in origin? Or that which is encoded in symbols?

. For me, it is the latter. For the signs are themselves the supreme evidence for a Sign painter Who creates more than mere dust which, no matter how beautifully it refracts the light in sunrise or sunset, can never compare to the Words uttered by Those Who are the Chosen Instruments of His Will and the Dawning Points of His Names and Attributes, and the Daysprings of His Laws which give order to humanity and appreciation for life above mere physical survival.

.

 

[Kaninchen]

Kaninchen,
. When we consider the deep wisdom which has appeared in the universe through religious myths, whether actual or fictional, there is still a Source which is to be reckoned with which has brought these truths into being.

. What has greater effect upon the human condition? That which is physical in origin? Or that which is encoded in symbols?

. For me, it is the latter. For the signs are themselves the supreme evidence for a Sign painter Who creates more than mere dust which, no matter how beautifully it refracts the light in sunrise or sunset, can never compare to the Words uttered by Those Who are the Chosen Instruments of His Will and the Dawning Points of His Names and Attributes, and the Daysprings of His Laws which give order to humanity and appreciation for life above mere physical survival…

There’s something about hearing sentiments such as these that, for me, always brings to mind the last sequence of Voltaire’s ‘Candide’ -

As to Pangloss, he evidently had a lurking consciousness that his theory required unceasing exertions, and all his ingenuity, to sustain it. Yet he stuck to it to the last; his thinking and talking faculties could hardly be diverted from it for a moment. He seized every occasion to say to Candide, “All the events in this best of possible worlds are admirably connected. If a single, link in the great chain were omitted, the harmony of the entire universe would be destroyed. If you had not been expelled from that beautiful castle, with those cruel kicks, for your love to Miss Cunegonde; if you had not been imprisoned by the inquisition; if you had not travelled over a great portion of America on foot; if you had not plunged your sword through the baron; if you had not lost all the sheep you brought from that fine country, Eldorado, together with the riches with which they were laden, you would not be here to-day, eating preserved citrons, and pistachio nuts.”

“That’s very well said, and may all be true,” said Candide; “but let’s cultivate our garden.”

 

[Goya]

For those of us who see the New Testament as pious fiction, the Apostles are just characters in a story.

Characters in a story that left historical legacies in specific geographic locations?

Did these ‘characters in a story’ benefit the various pagan cultures and Jews, who turned their backs on their own cultures, laws, and peoples–and on their own ‘characters in a story’–sufficiently to warrant them doing so, under penalty of being ostracized, persecution or even death?

That’s quite a conspiracy theory. So many ppl. from so many diverse cultures, with so many conflicting interests would have had to be involved…and to what end?

 

[Kaninchen]

Characters in a story that left historical legacies in specific geographic locations?

Did these ‘characters in a story’ benefit the various pagan cultures and Jews, who turned their backs on their own cultures, laws, and peoples–and on their own ‘characters in a story’–sufficiently to warrant them doing so, under penalty of being ostracized, persecution or even death?

That’s quite a conspiracy theory. So many ppl. from so many diverse cultures, with so many conflicting interests would have had to be involved…and to what end?

Certainly, one of the things that using the concept of ‘pious fiction’ does is to upset people who believe in the writings concerned - for example, Mormons probably get upset when people talk about their scriptures/heritage that way and certainly Muslims get upset . . . and they, together with followers of other religions, could use much the same kinds of arguments in their defence that you’re using.

They’re the sorts of arguments that kind of work in supporting one’s own suppositions but they’re not so effective in convincing others.

 

[M1Garand]

Certainly, one of the things that using the concept of ‘pious fiction’ does is to upset people who believe in the writings concerned - for example, Mormons probably get upset when people talk about their scriptures/heritage that way and certainly Muslims get upset . . . and they, together with followers of other religions, could use much the same kinds of arguments in their defence that you’re using.

They’re the sorts of arguments that kind of work in supporting one’s own suppositions but they’re not so effective in convincing others.

Thats right its all an apparent stalemate to those who refuse to rise above relativism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What are your “proofs” or what convinces you the most about Jesus’ Divinity and Resurrection?

**
The Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection**
By William Lane Craig
youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ

Fact 1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his personal tomb. This is significant because it would have been difficult for the disciples to make up the story of an empty tomb when everyone knew where the tomb was located.

1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians.
   “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” (1 Co 15:3-5)
   Paul “received” this account from Peter within the first five years of Jesus’ crucifixion making the possibility of legend or myth very unlikely.
2. The account of the burial is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The passion narrative, in particular, is thought to be from an even earlier account that was used by all of the gospel writers.
3. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.
4. No competing burial story exists.

Fact 2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his female followers.

1. The empty tomb story is part of the very old source material used by Mark.
2. The old tradition cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians implies the fact of the empty tomb.
3. Mark’s story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment.
4. The fact that women’s testimony was worthless in first century Palestine strengthens the case that women were the first to discover the empty tomb. Why would any account use the suspect testimony of women if it were not an accurate recounting of what really happened?
5. The earliest Jewish allegations that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body presupposes that the tomb was empty.

Fact 3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances (which is quoted by Paul and vouchsafed by his personal acquaintance with many of the people involved), guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter, to the Apostles, to 500 people at one time, and to James.
2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation to these appearances.
3. Researchers have noticed signs of historical credibility in the specific appearances; for example, the unexpected activity of the disciples’ fishing prior to Jesus’ appearance by the Lake of Tiberius or the otherwise inexplicable conversion of James.

Fact 4: The disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite having every reason not to believe it.

1. Their leader was dead, and Jews had no belief in a dying (and rising) Messiah.
2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him to be a heretic and a man literally under the curse of God.
3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world.

The historical resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of these facts.

 

[Goya]

Certainly, one of the things that using the concept of ‘pious fiction’ does is to upset people who believe in the writings concerned - for example, Mormons probably get upset when people talk about their scriptures/heritage that way and certainly Muslims get upset . . . and they, together with followers of other religions, could use much the same kinds of arguments in their defence that you’re using.

They’re the sorts of arguments that kind of work in supporting one’s own suppositions but they’re not so effective in convincing others.

No one is ‘upset’–don’t know where you got that from my post. That’s just silly.

As for your contention–I didn’t mentioned anything at all about ‘writings’. Does "historical legacies in specific geographic locations’ sound like ‘writings’?

The writings which we did inherit, confirmed the oral tradition that has survived in various actual locations. These locations and ‘legacies’ do not rest on, or come to us, exclusively from ‘writings’. The ‘writings’ shed light on (and confirm) the traditions handed down.

Do you see the difference?

You’re contention only holds water if our Faith was based exclusively on a book, books, or ‘writings’. It is not. The tradition was primarily passed on by word of mouth. As I’m sure you well know, even the Gospel accounts and letters of St. Paul, etc./et. al., were written long after the Tradition already existed.

…and again, your canned apologetic completely dismissed the point of inherently conflicting interests. For this Tradition to have taken hold and spread like wild fire, real people in real places actually had to turn their backs on their families, their heritage, their culture, their identity, their status…risk being ostracized and persecuted, in order to adopt this radical faith.

The ‘writings’ were written about ex post facto. They did not precede the Faith.

Ergo, not just ‘characters in a story.’ That’s patently absurd.

You may contend that what they preached wasn’t true, or that they were liars–many have and do–but to pretend they never existed, or that they were merely fictitious characters, is to ignore history.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Certainly, one of the things that using the concept of ‘pious fiction’ does is to upset people who believe in the writings concerned - for example, Mormons probably get upset when people talk about their scriptures/heritage that way and certainly Muslims get upset . . . and they, together with followers of other religions, could use much the same kinds of arguments in their defence that you’re using.

They’re the sorts of arguments that kind of work in supporting one’s own suppositions but they’re not so effective in convincing others.

Especially, those who subscribe to the biggest fiction of all - that it is all merely pious fiction.

Reality has a way of breaking into that little myth, as well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For those of us who see the New Testament as pious fiction, the Apostles are just characters in a story.

I’m curious about this.

Is it your belief that the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John were not real people and never actually lived?

 

[Kaninchen]

Ergo, not just ‘characters in a story.’ That’s patently absurd.

You may contend that what they preached wasn’t true, or that they were liars–many have and do–but to pretend they never existed, or that they were merely fictitious characters, is to ignore history.

I never said that they didn’t exist - there’s a difference between ‘existing’ and ‘existing as portrayed in a particular text, set of legends’.

As to the rest of your explanation - the followers of other religions could justify them in much the same way (with, or without, much the same oratorical flourishes).

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m curious about this.

Is it your belief that the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John were not real people and never actually lived?

Did they exist? Possibly/probably.

Did they exist as portrayed in text/legend? That’s another matter altogether.

 

[Kliska]

Kaninchen… so what do you feel is actual evidence for the existence of any historical figure, whether they feature in a particular religion or not? What is your standard of text crit that you put all manuscripts through?

 

[Kaninchen]

It’s not as simple as that, is it?

Did the Roman Emperor Vespasian exist, for example? Well, you can look at the inscriptions, monuments and so on but, indeed, they could be a Roman fiction (like Romulus and Remus who may or may not have existed but it’s unlikely that they were raised by a she wolf etc, etc). I’m prepared to accept that he existed, I’m prepared to accept that he got where he got because he was a successful general . . .

We then move on to claims that, like other Roman Emperors, Egyptian Pharaohs and so on Vespasian was - supposedly - a God.

At that point, I think we’d need something more, at that point we need an awful lot more.

 

[Kliska]

It’s not as simple as that, is it?

In essence, it is that simple. What you believe about the world and why is at least somewhat influenced by evidence, if one is being logical. It is also possible to have a bias that demands we keep moving the goal post just so something will not be true if what is under debate is personally threatening to something we hold dear, or something we believe defines us. Facing objective truth that forces us to change our views can be very scary indeed.

 

[M1Garand]

In essence, it is that simple. What you believe about the world and why is at least somewhat influenced by evidence, if one is being logical. It is also possible to have a bias that demands we keep moving the goal post just so something will not be true if what is under debate is personally threatening to something we hold dear, or something we believe defines us. Facing objective truth that forces us to change our views can be very scary indeed.

 

[Kaninchen]

In essence, it is that simple. What you believe about the world and why is at least somewhat influenced by evidence, if one is being logical. It is also possible to have a bias that demands we keep moving the goal post just so something will not be true if what is under debate is personally threatening to something we hold dear, or something we believe defines us. Facing objective truth that forces us to change our views can be very scary indeed.

Which is the same argument that believers in other religions would make. In other words you’re not a Mormon/Muslim/Whatever because you keep moving the goal posts and are afraid of ‘objective truth’.

 

[Kliska]

Which is the same argument that believers in other religions would make. In other words you’re not a Mormon/Muslim/Whatever because you keep moving the goal posts and are afraid of ‘objective truth’.

So then the question becomes, are you capable of being objective?

I feel like I have been objective in my searching, so for me the answer is yes. After comparing all the major world religions and the worldview they teach, I have found the Truth in Christianity… and that Truth is an objective Person that has given ample evidence to humanity to find Him. Not all will, and not all are ready.

So, for example, I’ve studied the evidence provided by Muslims, and the Koran and have found it wanting. It does not match what I have observed about nature, human nature, suffering, history, etc… It does not offer truthful answers, and studying who they hold up as being a role model falls flat.

Again, I believe in objective truth and that if you search for it, you can find it. Some don’t believe that, but those that don’t tend to waste their time in discussions. If you don’t believe in objective truth, or that you can’t find it, then what’s the point in discussing anything? Do you believe in objective truth and that you can find it?

 

[Kaninchen]

So then the question becomes, are you capable of being objective?

I feel like I have been objective in my searching, so for me the answer is yes. After comparing all the major world religions and the worldview they teach, I have found the Truth in Christianity… and that Truth is an objective Person that has given ample evidence to humanity to find Him. Not all will, and not all are ready.

So, for example, I’ve studied the evidence provided by Muslims, and the Koran and have found it wanting. It does not match what I have observed about nature, human nature, suffering, history, etc… It does not offer truthful answers, and studying who they hold up as being a role model falls flat.

Again, I believe in objective truth and that if you search for it, you can find it. Some don’t believe that, but those that don’t tend to waste their time in discussions. If you don’t believe in objective truth, or that you can’t find it, then what’s the point in discussing anything? Do you believe in objective truth and that you can find it?

The concept of ‘objective truth’ has filled libraries.

 

[Kliska]

The concept of ‘objective truth’ has filled libraries.

That wasn’t my question; do you personally believe in objective truth?