The Resurrection

[Grym]

Either way, you’re begging the question

In Buddhism a being might be born in another status depending on the flow of a number of things. I.e. A human might be reborn as a god or vice versa. The attributes of the body of beings called gods are not the same as ours. They are helthier and more longlived than us. In some heavens the beings are not born like us through a mother and a father but they are reborn spontaneously. And at death their bodies do not decompose but they disapear. For me it sounds a lot like what you call resurrection. Other gods are immaterial altogether.

So a being might at death spontaneously disapear and spontaneously be reborn in a whole new body without blemish. At the same location or somewhere else.

Not if your challenging it with your own presupposed premise. The argument asks s to do one thing: look at the evidence void of our own preconceptions.

To critically examine an argument you have to be allowed to be critical. After all I am as convinced as you are about Jesus resurrection. Mainly I have a bunch of questions about the how and abouts. I am mainly testing the argument for fun and to see if your argument indeed can be challenged.

The Jews asked the Romans to put the guard there:
Matt 27:[62] Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate
[63] and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, After three days I will rise again.' [64] Therefore order the sepulchre to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away, and tell the people, He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.”
[65] Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.”
[66] So they went and made the sepulchre secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard.

If this is true then it renders it even more improbable that someone tampered with his body. But on the other hand a conspiricy fan would just say that this is an after contruction.

If you’re suggesting that the guards freed Jesus, that’s frankly absurd.

To suggest this then you would have to posit something that you could not possibly know, i.e. you’re begging the question.

There were the disciples, eleven of which had abandoned Him during His execution except John(a very young man, probably still in his teens) and “the women” including His mother and Mary Magdelene.

Then you had the Romans who just executed Him, and the Jews(including the populace of the city) who called for His crucifixion.

I cannot argue with this since I lack the knowleadge. I just supposed Jesus would have a lot of other followers at the time?

That’s a strawman. The argument said that the disciples refused to deny Christ.

And even those that did deny Christ, never admitted that the resurrection was a concocted lie. That given the fickleness of the human heart, if it was a concocted lie, it most certainly had ben found out during torture.

Stephen was stones to death(Acts 7) and James was beheaded(Acts 12).

The martyrologies and hagiographies are full of excerpts of trials where Christians of every class, clergy and laity, when to their deaths with these words on their lips: Christiano sum(I am a Christian).

So, no, its not just speculation.

That is not a strawman.

You said:

The “cruncher” in this argument is the historical fact that no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake, a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when people broke under pressure and denied Christ and worshipped Ceasar, the never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For the cat was never in the bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn’t have become Christians.

I am asking you how you know that the people being tortured or bribed actually was asked to deny the resurrection? Is it written down somewhere by reliable witnesses or are you speculating? Nothing in the above answers that question other that leaning towards speculation.

/Victor

 

[Amandil]

The bellow was an opinion of another Catholic on this forum. Do you agree to the statemant?

I think I have very difficult to understand the importance of this. It seems as though this person is willing to abondon his faith if the resurrection is false? Do you concur to that sentiment? In that case would you mind shedding some light on what part of Jesus message that looses its validity in that case?

/Victor

Because as high and valuable as morality and self-denial is, it is not what Christians really believe that we were made for. We were made to be in relationship with God.

Sin destroys that relationship and makes it impossible to be in relationship with Him.

Human beings cannot even be “good” for 24 hours at a time, it takes an extreme effort of the will cooperating with right reason through adherence to good moral principles and almost heroic self-denial to even achieve what even a Buddhist could call a “moral life”. And even when that summit is reached there is still an infinite ascent to what we would call the divine order.

For the rest of us it is nearly impossible to achieve a “moral” life. If we said to ourselves “I’ll be good even if it kills me,” that’s exactly what happens because we just simply cannot do it on our own. We need help. Divine help.

Christ came to conquer sin. He didn’t conquer sin by simply proclaiming the Beatitudes(although they are utterly sublime in themselves), He conquered sin through His Passion, death, and Resurrection.

The Resurrection is at once proof that we can trust God in all things, that God supremely loves us despite our sinfulness, that He stands ready to offer divine help, and that death is not the end of our existence.

Everything hinges on the Resurrection. Because Jesus didn’t just teach a higher morality, He also explicitly claimed to at once to be the Messiah of the Jews(the son of David) AND the Son of God.

There is no ambiguity here (despite the various opinions of other brands of christianity) because that is precisely why the Jews wanted Him dead(John 10:33).

If the Resurrection is not true or if He is not the Son of God, then Jesus is the most diabolical liar in human history. And if He is such a diabolical liar, does that say about the rest of His teachings?

If you look at the rest of Jesus’ deeds and His teachings though, the thought that such a great “sage” would perpetrate such a horrible lie onto the world is unthinkable.

So the only conclusion left is that Jesus is Who He said He is: “I AM” He is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.

And if Jesus is God, then all other beliefs, philosophies, value-opinions, etc., are nothing in comparison to Him. Jesus said “no one can come to the Father except by Me.” It means that none of those philosophies, no matter how high they may appear, are not salvific.

Without the Resurrection, all the above falls apart. There is no solution to sin. Death is the end of everything. And there is absolutely no reason to believe in anything, much less Christianity.

 

[Grym]

Because as high and valuable as morality and self-denial is, it is not what Christians really believe that we were made for. We were made to be in relationship with God.

Sin destroys that relationship and makes it impossible to be in relationship with Him.

Human beings cannot even be “good” for 24 hours at a time, it takes an extreme effort of the will cooperating with right reason through adherence to good moral principles and almost heroic self-denial to even achieve what even a Buddhist could call a “moral life”. And even when that summit is reached there is still an infinite ascent to what we would call the divine order.

For the rest of us it is nearly impossible to achieve a “moral” life. If we said to ourselves “I’ll be good even if it kills me,” that’s exactly what happens because we just simply cannot do it on our own. We need help. Divine help.

Christ came to conquer sin. He didn’t conquer sin by simply proclaiming the Beatitudes(although they are utterly sublime in themselves), He conquered sin through His Passion, death, and Resurrection.

The Resurrection is at once proof that we can trust God in all things, that God supremely loves us despite our sinfulness, that He stands ready to offer divine help, and that death is not the end of our existence.

Everything hinges on the Resurrection. Because Jesus didn’t just teach a higher morality, He also explicitly claimed to at once to be the Messiah of the Jews(the son of David) AND the Son of God.

There is no ambiguity here (despite the various opinions of other brands of christianity) because that is precisely why the Jews wanted Him dead(John 10:33).

If the Resurrection is not true or if He is not the Son of God, then Jesus is the most diabolical liar in human history. And if He is such a diabolical liar, does that say about the rest of His teachings?

If you look at the rest of Jesus’ deeds and His teachings though, the thought that such a great “sage” would perpetrate such a horrible lie onto the world is unthinkable.

So the only conclusion left is that Jesus is Who He said He is: “I AM” He is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.

And if Jesus is God, then all other beliefs, philosophies, value-opinions, etc., are nothing in comparison to Him. Jesus said “no one can come to the Father except by Me.” It means that none of those philosophies, no matter how high they may appear, are not salvific.

Without the Resurrection, all the above falls apart. There is no solution to sin. Death is the end of everything. And there is absolutely no reason to believe in anything, much less Christianity.

Thank you.

 

[Amandil]

In Buddhism a being might be born in another status depending on the flow of a number of things. I.e. A human might be reborn as a god or vice versa. The attributes of the body of beings called gods are not the same as ours. They are helthier and more longlived than us. In some heavens the beings are not born like us through a mother and a father but they are reborn spontaneously. And at death their bodies do not decompose but they disapear. For me it sounds a lot like what you call resurrection. Other gods are immaterial altogether.

So a being might at death spontaneously disapear and spontaneously be reborn in a whole new body without blemish. At the same location or somewhere else.

Which is presupposing Buddhism without any certain data that its true. By presupposing Buddhism you’re begging the question and arguing in a circle.

To critically examine an argument you have to be allowed to be critical. After all I am as convinced as you are about Jesus resurrection. Mainly I have a bunch of questions about the how and abouts. I am mainly testing the argument for fun and to see if your argument indeed can be challenged.

“Testing an argument for fun” is not a sound foundation for a test.

If this is true then it renders it even more improbable that someone tampered with his body. But on the other hand a conspiricy fan would just say that this is an after contruction.

And he’d be arguing in a circle presupposing the certitude of his belief in a conspiracy.

That is not a strawman.

I am asking you how you know that the people being tortured or bribed actually was asked to deny the resurrection? Is it written down somewhere by reliable witnesses or are you speculating? Nothing in the above answers that question other that leaning towards speculation.

/Victor

I never explicitly said that they “was asked to deny the resurrection”.

It follows that if they new that the resurrection was a lie, they would have never become Christians to begin with.

It also follows that if they knew that the resurrection was a lie but only joined Christianity because of some personal “advantage”(God only knows what kind of advantage one could gain from joining a religion which was illegal in the Roman empire and punishable by death), that upon their apostasy they would have readily admitted the lie to the Roman authorities. This never happened.

The statement says that:
"Even when people broke under pressure and denied Christ and worshipped Ceasar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For the cat was never in the bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn’t have become Christians.

It already established how the Apostles could not have been liars and why.(2 Pet 1:16-18)

The bold above necessarily follows from the previous sentence.

Here’s one such martyrology based upon eyewitness accounts as well as Roman court records:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp.

 

[Grym]

I said

There are a lot of things that is a body but still is something completely other than what we know as a body.

Appearing in the midst of nowhere and appearing as someone else is a Iddhi. A craft that can be developed by mortals. There have been other who are not immortal that have claimed the same abilities.

Besides the body of a heavenly being does not necessarily have the same weaknesses of us mortals, that stands to reason, but that does not mean their bodies are immortal.

You said:

You’re still presupposing your beliefs apart from the evidence.

The argument asks us to do one thing: separate interpretation from belief.

It says, “these are the facts of the historical record as we have them based on these eyewitness accounts.”

None of these people believed in Buddhism. And Jesus was not Buddhist(or Hindu as some revisionists have fallaciously tried to claim).

But I am not seeing only the evidence of the bible. I am not christian.

There are a lot of things that is a body but still is something completely other than what we know as a body.

For instance bacteria are not immortal.

Appearing in the midst of nowhere and appearing as someone else is a Iddhi. A craft that can be developed by mortals. There have been other who are not immortal that have claimed the same abilities.

There are numerous written testemonies media documentation and today living eyewitness accounts of these abilities.
Since the resurrection only has 4 written witness descriptions I think evidence of Iddhis must be considered on par with the evidence of the resurrection.

Besides the body of a heavenly being does not necessarily have the same weaknesses of us mortals, that stands to reason, but that does not mean their bodies are immortal.

There are myriads of people able to communicate with the other side and the beings of those worlds. Alive today. I base my knowleadge on them. But of course I do not expect you to believe me.

Aside from that He ascended into (heaven) with the body He possessed after the Resurrection?

Hebrews 9:[11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
[12] he entered once for all into the Holy Place(heaven), taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

1 Peter 3:1.[18] For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit…

I see. The premise is that heaven is eternal. Am I right? Thanks.

I have a human father. So no, I am not “fully divine”. I take it that you’re neither well-versed on the Incarnation?

As to your last question, it’s based upon Jesus’ own words:
[34] And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
[35] but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
[36] for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
[37] But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
[38] Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.”

No I am not well versed in the Bible I am a buddhist after all. .

Thanks.

I’m not trying to “justify” anything. The argument is based on the data that is presented. It doesn’t depend upon popular opinion. “Objective” doesn’t even necessarily mean “publically proven”. It means “independent of the knower and his consciousness”. So what is objectively true doesn’t necessarily need to be “identifiable” to be true. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

Conversely a truth is still true even if no one believes it.

I think we could have a conversation about this in another thread. I do not agree completely.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Which is presupposing Buddhism without any certain data that its true. By presupposing Buddhism you’re begging the question and arguing in a circle.

No. It would seem that way to *you *since you expect an solid argument and I am only explaining my view on things.

“Testing an argument for fun” is not a sound foundation for a test.

It is the best foundation for anything. People shouldn’t have to do stuff they do not think is fun.

And he’d be arguing in a circle presupposing the certitude of his belief in a conspiracy.

But that does not mean he is wrong.

I never explicitly said that they “was asked to deny the resurrection”.

I never said you did.

It also follows that if they knew that the resurrection was a lie but only joined Christianity because of some personal “advantage”(God only knows what kind of advantage one could gain from joining a religion which was illegal in the Roman empire and punishable by death), that upon their apostasy they would have readily admitted the lie to the Roman authorities. This never happened.

The statement says that:
"Even when people broke under pressure and denied Christ and worshipped Ceasar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For the cat was never in the bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn’t have become Christians.

It already established how the Apostles could not have been liars and why.(2 Pet 1:16-18)

The bold above necessarily follows from the previous sentence.

Here’s one such martyrology based upon eyewitness accounts as well as Roman court records:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp.

This is a better argument. But a reference to an apostasy would have been better to be able to see if the whole question of resurrection really was on the table at all or not.

/Victor

 

[Amandil]

Grym:

But I am not seeing only the evidence of the bible. I am not christian.

I’m not claiming that the Bible is any different than any other work of ancient origin; no different that Josephus’ Antiquities.

Therefore one doesn’t need to be a Christian to accept the eyewitness accounts therein as historically accurate.

Grym:

There are numerous written testemonies media documentation and today living eyewitness accounts of these abilities.

Which means what exactly? That’s the problem with Buddhist spirituality, its undiscerning because it necessarily denies the law of non-contradiction. It assumes that all paths to “spirituality” are “good”.

Grym:

Since the resurrection only has 4 written witness descriptions I think evidence of Iddhis must be considered on par with the evidence of the resurrection.

So quantity necessarily equals quality?

Grym:

There are myriads of people able to communicate with the other side and the beings of those worlds. Alive today. I base my knowleadge on them. But of course I do not expect you to believe me.

Again, such practices are non-discerning. Neither they nor you have any idea as to whom your actually communicating with.

 

[Amandil]

No. It would seem that way to *you *since you expect an solid argument and I am only explaining my view on things.

We’re having a debate so it follows that you were presenting an argument, not just merely explaining your views.

Grym:

It is the best foundation for anything. People shouldn’t have to do stuff they do not think is fun.

You test something to separate what is true from what is false. I know Buddhism necessarily rejects such “nonsense” as the clear antithesis between right and wrong, true and false.

Grym:

But that does not mean he is wrong.

False conclusions necessarily follow from false or fallacious premises.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is the best foundation for anything. People shouldn’t have to do stuff they do not think is fun. . .

The teachings of the Buddha suggest quite the opposite. Where does one even start?

Try for example: vbgnet.org/watch-video.asp?ItemId=29036
It is interesting to see and hear real Buddhists.
It starts off by speaking about correct, respectful behaviour in the monastery and not doing as one pleases. At around 1:03 the monk speaks about the difficulty in attaining heaven as a householder rather than a monk. At about 1:06, he says that one who does not live his life in accordance to the Law of Karma will not attain heaven.

“Fun” ties you to the world. Giving it up, and thereby progressing down the spiritual path opens you up to what is truly joyous. Meditating 24/7 is fun. Spiritual people have real fun; their foundation is God.

 

[Grym]

I’m not claiming that the Bible is any different than any other work of ancient origin; no different that Josephus’ Antiquities.

Therefore one doesn’t need to be a Christian to accept the eyewitness accounts therein as historically accurate.

I am not saying anything else.

That’s the problem with Buddhist spirituality, its undiscerning because it necessarily denies the law of non-contradiction.

Can you give me an example?

It assumes that all paths to “spirituality” are “good”.

Never heard that before in my life? Who told you that?

So quantity necessarily equals quality?

No never claimed that.

Again, such practices are non-discerning. Neither they nor you have any idea as to whom your actually communicating with.

I think they have a better idea than you. Or have you been speaking to God lately?

 

[Grym]

We’re having a debate so it follows that you were presenting an argument, not just merely explaining your views.

Correction. You are trying to have a debate with me.
I am trying to find out more about the resurrection. I am not interested in debating with you on this subject.

You test something to separate what is true from what is false. I know Buddhism necessarily rejects such “nonsense” as the clear antithesis between right and wrong, true and false.

No you are wrong there. If there is no discernment between right and wrong path there can be no Dhamma. But it probably does not care much for what a Christian thinks is right or wrong. Because Christianity does not know the way to Nibbana so those values are irrelevant to the path.

False conclusions necessarily follow from false or fallacious premises.

No not necessarily. The above statement is false.

 

[Grym]

The teachings of the Buddha suggest quite the opposite.

Really where?

Where does one even start?

Doing what? If you fill me in about what it is you are trying to do I can maybe help you out?

It is interesting to see and hear real Buddhists.

Yepp I agree. What would you like to hear me say?

“Fun” ties you to the world. Giving it up, and thereby progressing down the spiritual path opens you up to what is truly joyous. Meditating 24/7 is fun. Spiritual people have real fun; their foundation is God.

Nice to see that you agree that fun is the best foundation for anything.

But I see you are using the word a little bit in contradiction to itself. Other than that I fully agree.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

You test something to separate what is true from what is false. I know Buddhism necessarily rejects such “nonsense” as the clear antithesis between right and wrong, true and false.

Thank you for your explanation of resurrection. I willow bring it up with a friend of mine who is catholic. See what she says.

One thing though. You test a hypothesis to determine how well it corresponds to the prevailing theory of the world that the majority of the community believes in.

But I think that is a discussion for an entirely another thread.

Thanks all the same.

/Victor

 

[Amandil]

Thank you for your explanation of resurrection. I willow bring it up with a friend of mine who is catholic. See what she says.

One thing though. You test a hypothesis to determine how well it corresponds to the prevailing theory of the world that the majority of the community believes in.

But I think that is a discussion for an entirely another thread.

Thanks all the same.

/Victor

Truth is not dependent upon majority opinion.

If you want to know what the Church teaches about the Resurrection, why don’t you just go find out what the Church teaches?

Why not examine the extant documents from Christians who were bishops in the first centuries of Christianity?

Why not read what the Apostles recorded that they witnessed in the Bible?

 

[Grym]

Truth is not dependent upon majority opinion.

If you want to know what the Church teaches about the Resurrection, why don’t you just go find out what the Church teaches?

Why not examine the extant documents from Christians who were bishops in the first centuries of Christianity?

Why not read what the Apostles recorded that they witnessed in the Bible?

Of course truth is in the eye of the beholder. Without the beholder there is no truth that means anything. The answer to your other questions stem from the mentioned truth about the truth. Old words written down in some half forgotten language means nothing unless given a voice from a live practitioner. I.e I value your opinion more than theirs. .

 

[Amandil]

Of course truth is in the eye of the beholder. Without the beholder there is no truth that means anything. The answer to your other questions stem from the mentioned truth about the truth. Old words written down in some half forgotten language means nothing unless given a voice from a live practitioner. I.e I value your opinion more than theirs. .

This is wildly self-contradictory but I’m not going to derail this. I’ll begin another thread addressing this.

 

[Grym]

This is wildly self-contradictory but I’m not going to derail this. I’ll begin another thread addressing this.

Just pm me the thread name. I looked a little but could not find any new thread. It would be nice if you could show me the contradiction in my statement.