Was Jesus Christ Really Resurrected?
-
Believer
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Oregon
Was Jesus Christ Really Resurrected?
Okay, so me and my dad were having a good talk on Christianity and other pagan/mythological religions with their respective God(s). From what my dad said to me, I did not know. He said the mythological Gods ALSO had their "son" come to Earth, Like the God Zeus with his son Hercules. From what I remember, he said that none of those Gods with their "sons" died for our sins like Jesus did. So my question is, with litterally hundreds of Gods with their "sons" coming down to Earth, what sets Christianity and its claims that the Christian God sending down Jesus was anymore unique from the mythological gods? I mean, I was a little anxious when my dad said something along the lines of we are cooked when we are dead, meaning there isn't any afterlife. Isnt it possible that the people who recorded and witnessed Jesus may have THOUGHT he was resurrected when he really wasn't? History CAN be twisted and even though Jesus himself made huge claims about himself and said he would be raised the 3rd day, is it possible he wasn't, and the gospel writers made something elaborate up to make it sound as if he had come back to life from the dead? Can we have real evidence/proof that Jesus Christ REALLY did rise from the dead on the 3rd day? Are there really good in depth articles out there that can confirm and even prove Jesus did come back alive? I mean, face it, 10 in 10 people die, of course most of us want to live on for eternity, we don't want to die. It's just that while there have been other religions that have lived on longer than Christianity, what really makes ours that more unique than the other religions? One thing I know is that Jesus brought Lazurous (spelling?) back to life through Gods power or Jesus' power, so wouldn't God do the same with Jesus? I am just concerned, we all want to live on forever, what is the strong evidence/proof?
Re: Was Jesus Christ Really Resurrected?
If you're a Christian, you shouldn't question Jesus Christ's divinity.HelpMeGod wrote:Okay, so me and my dad were having a good talk on Christianity and other pagan/mythological religions with their respective God(s). From what my dad said to me, I did not know. He said the mythological Gods ALSO had their "son" come to Earth, Like the God Zeus with his son Hercules. From what I remember, he said that none of those Gods with their "sons" died for our sins like Jesus did. So my question is, with litterally hundreds of Gods with their "sons" coming down to Earth, what sets Christianity and its claims that the Christian God sending down Jesus was anymore unique from the mythological gods? I mean, I was a little anxious when my dad said something along the lines of we are cooked when we are dead, meaning there isn't any afterlife. Isnt it possible that the people who recorded and witnessed Jesus may have THOUGHT he was resurrected when he really wasn't? History CAN be twisted and even though Jesus himself made huge claims about himself and said he would be raised the 3rd day, is it possible he wasn't, and the gospel writers made something elaborate up to make it sound as if he had come back to life from the dead? Can we have real evidence/proof that Jesus Christ REALLY did rise from the dead on the 3rd day? Are there really good in depth articles out there that can confirm and even prove Jesus did come back alive? I mean, face it, 10 in 10 people die, of course most of us want to live on for eternity, we don't want to die. It's just that while there have been other religions that have lived on longer than Christianity, what really makes ours that more unique than the other religions? One thing I know is that Jesus brought Lazurous (spelling?) back to life through Gods power or Jesus' power, so wouldn't God do the same with Jesus? I am just concerned, we all want to live on forever, what is the strong evidence/proof?
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
TO: HelpMeGod
Hello HelpMeGod,
You may get something out of this article from Historian Tom Wright:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesu ... ection.htm
Here are a few random clips:
The question of Jesus' resurrection continues to haunt the thinking and writing of many scholars. I shall not debate in detail with them here; there are other places for that. I want instead to sketch, in broad strokes, a historical argument about what happened three days after Jesus' crucifixion.
The question divides into four. First, what did people in the first century, both pagans and Jews, hope for? What did they believe about life after death, and particularly about resurrection? Second, what did the early Christians believe on the same subjects? What did they hope for? Third, what reasons did the early Christians give for their hope and belief, and what did they mean by the key word 'resurrection' which they used of Jesus? Finally, what can the historian say by way of comment on this early Christian claim?
In each case, of course, what you end up with is what we would call a physical body; but there was no agreement as to whether this body would be exactly like the one you had before, or significantly different in some way.
Finally, some at least of those who believed in the resurrection also believed in the coming of the Messiah, though the relation between Messiah and resurrection is not usually clear. The Messiah would defeat YHWH's enemies, rebuild or cleanse the Temple, and establish YHWH's rule in the world. Belief in the coming of a Messiah was obviously political as well as theological, as the messianic movements in the period bear witness. Resurrection and Messiah together speak of the time when God will be king and the present rulers (Caesar, Herod, the Sadducees) will be deposed. Together they speak of the coming Reign of God.
The first point to make here is vital. I have argued that the early Christians looked forward to a resurrection which was not a mere resuscitation, nor yet the abandonment of the body and the liberation of the soul, but a transformation, a new type of body living within a new type of world. This belief is embroidered with biblical motifs, articulated in rich theology. Yet in the gospel narratives we find a story, told from different angles of course, without such embroidering and theology — told indeed in restrained, largely unadorned prose. Yet the story is precisely of a single body neither abandoned, nor merely resuscitated, but transformed; and this, though itself totally unexpected, could give rise to exactly that developed view of which I have spoken. The Easter narratives, in other words, appear to offer an answer to why the early Christian hope and life took the form and shape they did.
Second, a word about Mark. When Mark says that the women 'said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid,' he does not mean they never said anything to anyone. I do not think, in any case, that Mark finished his gospel at chapter 16 verse 8.1 think he wrote more, which is now lost. But I think his emphatic denial that the women said anything to anyone is meant to counter the charge, actual or possible, that if the women really had seen something remarkable — an empty tomb, a rolled-away stone, an angel — they would have been bound to tell everyone they met. This they had not done; so (the charge would run) maybe they had not seen anything much after all? Certainly not, replies Mark: the reason they said nothing to anyone (until, we presume, they got to the disciples) is because they were scared stiff.
Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw. I do not think that history can force us to draw any particular further deductions beyond these two phenomena; the conclusion the disciples drew is there for the taking, but it is open to us, as it was to them, to remain cautious. Thomas waited a week before believing what he had been told. On Matthew's mountain, some had their doubts.
However, the elegance and simplicity of explaining the two outstanding phenomena, the empty tomb and the visions, by means of one another, ought to be obvious. Were it not for the astounding, and world-view-challenging, claim that is thereby made, I think everyone would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical result. If some other account explained the rise of Christianity as naturally, completely and satisfyingly as does the early Christians' belief, while leaving normal worldviews intact, it would be accepted without demur.
That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted. There are many other things to say about Jesus' resurrection. But, as far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The origins of Christianity, the reason why this new movement came into being and took the unexpected form it did, and particularly the strange mutations it produced within the Jewish hope for resurrection and the Jewish hope for a Messiah, are best explained by saying that something happened, two or three days after Jesus' death, for which the accounts in the four gospels are the least inadequate expression we have.
Of course, there are several reasons why people may not want, and often refuse, to believe this. But the historian must weigh, as well, the alternative accounts they themselves offer. And, to date, none of them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but utterly challenging, Christian one. The historian's task is not to force people to believe. It is to make it clear that the sort of reasoning historians characteristically employ — inference to the best explanation, tested rigorously in terms of the explanatory power of the hypothesis thus generated — points strongly towards the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and to make clear, too, that from that point on the historian alone cannot help. When you're dealing with worldviews, every community and every person must make their choices in the dark, even if there is a persistent rumour of light around the next corner.
As far as those pagan/mythological religions, you will find many similarities in all religions. These websites may help:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm
Check out other topics from the main index:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... e/main.htm
You may get something out of this article from Historian Tom Wright:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesu ... ection.htm
Here are a few random clips:
The question of Jesus' resurrection continues to haunt the thinking and writing of many scholars. I shall not debate in detail with them here; there are other places for that. I want instead to sketch, in broad strokes, a historical argument about what happened three days after Jesus' crucifixion.
The question divides into four. First, what did people in the first century, both pagans and Jews, hope for? What did they believe about life after death, and particularly about resurrection? Second, what did the early Christians believe on the same subjects? What did they hope for? Third, what reasons did the early Christians give for their hope and belief, and what did they mean by the key word 'resurrection' which they used of Jesus? Finally, what can the historian say by way of comment on this early Christian claim?
In each case, of course, what you end up with is what we would call a physical body; but there was no agreement as to whether this body would be exactly like the one you had before, or significantly different in some way.
Finally, some at least of those who believed in the resurrection also believed in the coming of the Messiah, though the relation between Messiah and resurrection is not usually clear. The Messiah would defeat YHWH's enemies, rebuild or cleanse the Temple, and establish YHWH's rule in the world. Belief in the coming of a Messiah was obviously political as well as theological, as the messianic movements in the period bear witness. Resurrection and Messiah together speak of the time when God will be king and the present rulers (Caesar, Herod, the Sadducees) will be deposed. Together they speak of the coming Reign of God.
The first point to make here is vital. I have argued that the early Christians looked forward to a resurrection which was not a mere resuscitation, nor yet the abandonment of the body and the liberation of the soul, but a transformation, a new type of body living within a new type of world. This belief is embroidered with biblical motifs, articulated in rich theology. Yet in the gospel narratives we find a story, told from different angles of course, without such embroidering and theology — told indeed in restrained, largely unadorned prose. Yet the story is precisely of a single body neither abandoned, nor merely resuscitated, but transformed; and this, though itself totally unexpected, could give rise to exactly that developed view of which I have spoken. The Easter narratives, in other words, appear to offer an answer to why the early Christian hope and life took the form and shape they did.
Second, a word about Mark. When Mark says that the women 'said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid,' he does not mean they never said anything to anyone. I do not think, in any case, that Mark finished his gospel at chapter 16 verse 8.1 think he wrote more, which is now lost. But I think his emphatic denial that the women said anything to anyone is meant to counter the charge, actual or possible, that if the women really had seen something remarkable — an empty tomb, a rolled-away stone, an angel — they would have been bound to tell everyone they met. This they had not done; so (the charge would run) maybe they had not seen anything much after all? Certainly not, replies Mark: the reason they said nothing to anyone (until, we presume, they got to the disciples) is because they were scared stiff.
Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw. I do not think that history can force us to draw any particular further deductions beyond these two phenomena; the conclusion the disciples drew is there for the taking, but it is open to us, as it was to them, to remain cautious. Thomas waited a week before believing what he had been told. On Matthew's mountain, some had their doubts.
However, the elegance and simplicity of explaining the two outstanding phenomena, the empty tomb and the visions, by means of one another, ought to be obvious. Were it not for the astounding, and world-view-challenging, claim that is thereby made, I think everyone would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical result. If some other account explained the rise of Christianity as naturally, completely and satisfyingly as does the early Christians' belief, while leaving normal worldviews intact, it would be accepted without demur.
That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted. There are many other things to say about Jesus' resurrection. But, as far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The origins of Christianity, the reason why this new movement came into being and took the unexpected form it did, and particularly the strange mutations it produced within the Jewish hope for resurrection and the Jewish hope for a Messiah, are best explained by saying that something happened, two or three days after Jesus' death, for which the accounts in the four gospels are the least inadequate expression we have.
Of course, there are several reasons why people may not want, and often refuse, to believe this. But the historian must weigh, as well, the alternative accounts they themselves offer. And, to date, none of them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but utterly challenging, Christian one. The historian's task is not to force people to believe. It is to make it clear that the sort of reasoning historians characteristically employ — inference to the best explanation, tested rigorously in terms of the explanatory power of the hypothesis thus generated — points strongly towards the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and to make clear, too, that from that point on the historian alone cannot help. When you're dealing with worldviews, every community and every person must make their choices in the dark, even if there is a persistent rumour of light around the next corner.
As far as those pagan/mythological religions, you will find many similarities in all religions. These websites may help:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm
Check out other topics from the main index:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... e/main.htm
-
Believer
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Oregon
Okay, thanks for the links Christian2. I am still left confused though. Here is my dilema. In the OT it starts by stating the creation of the earth, much of what current religions today share, later on, the rules are layed out and it says not to worship pagan gods, some people didn't worship pagan gods as instructed and some decided to make up there own and worship them. In the OT, prophets saw the coming of a savior to save mankind. When the NT came along, things Jesus were and said were almost just like that of the pagan gods and their sons that came to earth. Jesus, I think, didn't mention anything about not worshipping pagan gods in the NT. So that being said, it is difficult for me to see that the NT is historically true when it shares many of the pagan stuff in it. So HOW do we know for sure that everything in the NT is actually true from the virgin birth of the savior (also in pagan history) to the resurrection of Jesus (also in pagan history)? I can see how the OT can be trusted more because pagans don't have that but it just seems like the NT was a copycat of pagan roots and the church fathers of that day added to the NT to make it read more elaborate than anything else of pagan literature. It would have been better if God just started Christianity as the first and only religion instead of pagan religions behind Christianity, it just makes Christianity look more like pagan history.
-
jerickson314
- Established Member
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:50 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Illinois
Tektonics has a lot of stuff here - see here for a defense of the Resurrection, and here for a list of pages answering a lot of "copycat" charges. Or it might be easier to do a search for particular pagan figures.HelpMeGod wrote:Okay, thanks for the links Christian2. I am still left confused though. Here is my dilema. In the OT it starts by stating the creation of the earth, much of what current religions today share, later on, the rules are layed out and it says not to worship pagan gods, some people didn't worship pagan gods as instructed and some decided to make up there own and worship them. In the OT, prophets saw the coming of a savior to save mankind. When the NT came along, things Jesus were and said were almost just like that of the pagan gods and their sons that came to earth. Jesus, I think, didn't mention anything about not worshipping pagan gods in the NT. So that being said, it is difficult for me to see that the NT is historically true when it shares many of the pagan stuff in it. So HOW do we know for sure that everything in the NT is actually true from the virgin birth of the savior (also in pagan history) to the resurrection of Jesus (also in pagan history)? I can see how the OT can be trusted more because pagans don't have that but it just seems like the NT was a copycat of pagan roots and the church fathers of that day added to the NT to make it read more elaborate than anything else of pagan literature. It would have been better if God just started Christianity as the first and only religion instead of pagan religions behind Christianity, it just makes Christianity look more like pagan history.
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Examples of copycat? Examples of additions?HelpMeGod wrote:I can see how the OT can be trusted more because pagans don't have that but it just seems like the NT was a copycat of pagan roots and the church fathers of that day added to the NT to make it read more elaborate than anything else of pagan literature. It would have been better if God just started Christianity as the first and only religion instead of pagan religions behind Christianity, it just makes Christianity look more like pagan history.
The NT aside, the doctrine central to Christianity is Christ's death and resurrection. Now there is ample historical evidence for the Jesus' death and burial, the tomb being empty, people seeing Jesus alive after His death. Such evidence comes from sources outside the Bible, and also from books that comprise the NT if we treat them as historical documents rather than the NT as one religious document.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Believer
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Oregon
The first link jerickson314, was already refutted by an atheist, I don't have the link, but it was refutted on a forum or something. The second link is just a directory of pages that make up webpages. I just want to know, besides all of the pagan gods and the pagan gods sons that populated the earth before Christianity, was Jesus' story actually more unique and verifible by scholars and historians and proven not to originate from pagan history? Because what I am seeing is that Jesus and the whole NT seems to branch off of pagan history but not the OT.jerickson314 wrote:Tektonics has a lot of stuff here - see here for a defense of the Resurrection, and here for a list of pages answering a lot of "copycat" charges. Or it might be easier to do a search for particular pagan figures.HelpMeGod wrote:Okay, thanks for the links Christian2. I am still left confused though. Here is my dilema. In the OT it starts by stating the creation of the earth, much of what current religions today share, later on, the rules are layed out and it says not to worship pagan gods, some people didn't worship pagan gods as instructed and some decided to make up there own and worship them. In the OT, prophets saw the coming of a savior to save mankind. When the NT came along, things Jesus were and said were almost just like that of the pagan gods and their sons that came to earth. Jesus, I think, didn't mention anything about not worshipping pagan gods in the NT. So that being said, it is difficult for me to see that the NT is historically true when it shares many of the pagan stuff in it. So HOW do we know for sure that everything in the NT is actually true from the virgin birth of the savior (also in pagan history) to the resurrection of Jesus (also in pagan history)? I can see how the OT can be trusted more because pagans don't have that but it just seems like the NT was a copycat of pagan roots and the church fathers of that day added to the NT to make it read more elaborate than anything else of pagan literature. It would have been better if God just started Christianity as the first and only religion instead of pagan religions behind Christianity, it just makes Christianity look more like pagan history.
-
Believer
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Oregon
Kurieuo, I did research on this and it might have been sloppy, but I am seeing a lot of copycat material between the pagan religions/gods/sons and the things of Jesus. The pagan stuff was before Jesus, so how can Jesus' life be real if it looks like copycat stuff from pagan roots? Jesus came after pagan material. I know that the OT says to not worship pagan gods and whatnot, so was Christianity actually first, a multitude of people followed Gods commands and did not follow pagan gods but others strayed from God's commands and created theri own Gods/Sons/religions? I can see why it is difficult to find Christianity true, the Jews don't follow the NT for a reason, they think it is false. The OT is more reliable. If we didn't have this pagan stuff, we probably would have less atheists/agnostics/non-religious people.Kurieuo wrote:Examples of copycat? Examples of additions?HelpMeGod wrote:I can see how the OT can be trusted more because pagans don't have that but it just seems like the NT was a copycat of pagan roots and the church fathers of that day added to the NT to make it read more elaborate than anything else of pagan literature. It would have been better if God just started Christianity as the first and only religion instead of pagan religions behind Christianity, it just makes Christianity look more like pagan history.
The NT aside, the doctrine central to Christianity is Christ's death and resurrection. Now there is ample historical evidence for the Jesus' death and burial, the tomb being empty, people seeing Jesus alive after His death. Such evidence comes from sources outside the Bible, and also from books that comprise the NT if we treat them as historical documents rather than the NT as one religious document.
Kurieuo.
My Question to you Brian is
Why do you go off looking into this stuff, when you know that you don't have strong faith?
Another question while your reading about this stuff, do you study your own faith at the same time?
Why do you go off looking into this stuff, when you know that you don't have strong faith?
Another question while your reading about this stuff, do you study your own faith at the same time?
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
-
LittleShepherd
- Established Member
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:47 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Georgia, USA
There is at least one logical fallicy in this whole thing, and it can be remedied with one statement -- Christian accounts are always simpler and clearer than pagan accounts.
Point in case, the Creation story. It's not the first Creation story ever penned, and it's not even the first Creation story to put the events in that particular 7-day order. However, it goes against everything we know about the way stories developed in ancient times in one important way -- it simplified the story it was telling, rather than embellishing the story with whatever happened to be popular at the time. Biblical scholars tend to believe that God gave Moses the bare-bones account that had been given before, and which proved the basis for the semi-accurate, yet embellished, versions of the Creation story floating around at the time.
Another place was the Flood story. Yes, we have stuff like the Epic of Gilgamesh, which records a worldwide Flood. In fact, we have many Flood stories that tend to agree on certain points from the ancient Middle East -- the EoG is just the most famous extrabilical Flood account. Note that the Genesis Flood account is special in two ways. First, it's simpler than other Flood accounts, with very little to get in the way of the facts. It makes it clear that God is present, and that God is in control, without going into a bunch of useless detail. Second, it details an ark that's actually large enough to house the necessary number of animals, that's made of a seaworthy material, and which has dimensions that are so conducive to sailing that they're still being used today -- all from a man in a land not known for seamanship at all.
As for Christ's story, you're right that there are numerous accounts of gods sending their sons to earth. Given the claims of the Bible, it's not surprising that many different cultures had myths with some common ground. If the Bible is to be believed, then it's fairly clear from Genesis 3 that Adam and Eve themselves were aware that someone important was coming who was the "seed of a woman," -- as in, born with no help from a man. Also, while we know the first time it was penned in Scripture, we have no way of knowing that God didn't reveal the coming Resurrection beforehand. It's clear that the Jews had prophecies concerning the resurrection of their Messiah even as early as the reign of King Nimrod of Babylon -- his wife, in fact, started a cult around the idea that her son, Ishtar, had died and was resurrected(in other words, was the man the Jews prophecies spoke of).
Most of the "god sends son to earth" stories can be discounted for other reasons. If the god in question isn't all-powerful, all-knowing, and all that, he simply isn't a real god and the question needs go no further. That vetoes Zeus, Jupiter, and Osiris, and their sons. If we demand that the person actually be proven to have lived, that rules out every "son of a god" except for Jesus, who has incredible extrabiblical evidence for his existence from no fewer than 13 respected historians, and Ishtar, who actually lived as well but didn't do anything of importance other than be used by his mother -- some messiah he turned out to be.
Even the closest story to Jesus' own, the story of Mithras, has some flaws. First off, the very goal of Mithras dying was pointless -- to somehow overcome the darkness(in a literal sense). For one, the darkness doesn't need to be overcome -- God declared both the darkness and the light good when He created them. While darkness is used metaphorically to symbolize evil and lack of clarity, there is nothing literally evil about darkness. Mithras' death and resurrection was pointless and ill-conceived. Also, we have no source to prove that a person named Mithras actually lived and did these things. Jesus' goal was very clear, and far from stupid -- to die in order to solve a very literal problem -- cleansing of the corrupted hearts of men in order to reconcile them to God once and for all.
Jesus, on the other hand, has much going for Him.
--He's well-documented. We may be able to say a lot of things about Jesus, but not that He naver lived. A man named Jesus of Nazareth most certainly did live. Over 13 different historians of the age mention Him and His followers.
--The Jews never denied His resurrection. They rejected Him. Most of them refused to follow Him. But at no point do we see the Jews in the area denying His resurrection outright. The grave was empty, and there was nothing they could do about it but ignore it and hope it went away.
--The Jews, and the other people in the area, never denied Christ's miracles. They said many things about them, for sure, but never that they didn't happen. Their explanations ranged from demon possession to Egyptian necromancy, but it was clear to all who observed that Jesus' miracles were real, whatever their source.
Does anyone have the link to "17 reason Christianity should not have survived?" I'm having trouble finding it. It's a really good article that goes over many reasons why Jesus must be Who He claims to be. And it also makes many other points about Christianity, any two or three of which would have been enough to end Christianity real fast, if the claims made by Christianity hadn't been true, and even verifiable.
Point in case, the Creation story. It's not the first Creation story ever penned, and it's not even the first Creation story to put the events in that particular 7-day order. However, it goes against everything we know about the way stories developed in ancient times in one important way -- it simplified the story it was telling, rather than embellishing the story with whatever happened to be popular at the time. Biblical scholars tend to believe that God gave Moses the bare-bones account that had been given before, and which proved the basis for the semi-accurate, yet embellished, versions of the Creation story floating around at the time.
Another place was the Flood story. Yes, we have stuff like the Epic of Gilgamesh, which records a worldwide Flood. In fact, we have many Flood stories that tend to agree on certain points from the ancient Middle East -- the EoG is just the most famous extrabilical Flood account. Note that the Genesis Flood account is special in two ways. First, it's simpler than other Flood accounts, with very little to get in the way of the facts. It makes it clear that God is present, and that God is in control, without going into a bunch of useless detail. Second, it details an ark that's actually large enough to house the necessary number of animals, that's made of a seaworthy material, and which has dimensions that are so conducive to sailing that they're still being used today -- all from a man in a land not known for seamanship at all.
As for Christ's story, you're right that there are numerous accounts of gods sending their sons to earth. Given the claims of the Bible, it's not surprising that many different cultures had myths with some common ground. If the Bible is to be believed, then it's fairly clear from Genesis 3 that Adam and Eve themselves were aware that someone important was coming who was the "seed of a woman," -- as in, born with no help from a man. Also, while we know the first time it was penned in Scripture, we have no way of knowing that God didn't reveal the coming Resurrection beforehand. It's clear that the Jews had prophecies concerning the resurrection of their Messiah even as early as the reign of King Nimrod of Babylon -- his wife, in fact, started a cult around the idea that her son, Ishtar, had died and was resurrected(in other words, was the man the Jews prophecies spoke of).
Most of the "god sends son to earth" stories can be discounted for other reasons. If the god in question isn't all-powerful, all-knowing, and all that, he simply isn't a real god and the question needs go no further. That vetoes Zeus, Jupiter, and Osiris, and their sons. If we demand that the person actually be proven to have lived, that rules out every "son of a god" except for Jesus, who has incredible extrabiblical evidence for his existence from no fewer than 13 respected historians, and Ishtar, who actually lived as well but didn't do anything of importance other than be used by his mother -- some messiah he turned out to be.
Even the closest story to Jesus' own, the story of Mithras, has some flaws. First off, the very goal of Mithras dying was pointless -- to somehow overcome the darkness(in a literal sense). For one, the darkness doesn't need to be overcome -- God declared both the darkness and the light good when He created them. While darkness is used metaphorically to symbolize evil and lack of clarity, there is nothing literally evil about darkness. Mithras' death and resurrection was pointless and ill-conceived. Also, we have no source to prove that a person named Mithras actually lived and did these things. Jesus' goal was very clear, and far from stupid -- to die in order to solve a very literal problem -- cleansing of the corrupted hearts of men in order to reconcile them to God once and for all.
Jesus, on the other hand, has much going for Him.
--He's well-documented. We may be able to say a lot of things about Jesus, but not that He naver lived. A man named Jesus of Nazareth most certainly did live. Over 13 different historians of the age mention Him and His followers.
--The Jews never denied His resurrection. They rejected Him. Most of them refused to follow Him. But at no point do we see the Jews in the area denying His resurrection outright. The grave was empty, and there was nothing they could do about it but ignore it and hope it went away.
--The Jews, and the other people in the area, never denied Christ's miracles. They said many things about them, for sure, but never that they didn't happen. Their explanations ranged from demon possession to Egyptian necromancy, but it was clear to all who observed that Jesus' miracles were real, whatever their source.
Does anyone have the link to "17 reason Christianity should not have survived?" I'm having trouble finding it. It's a really good article that goes over many reasons why Jesus must be Who He claims to be. And it also makes many other points about Christianity, any two or three of which would have been enough to end Christianity real fast, if the claims made by Christianity hadn't been true, and even verifiable.
-
Judah
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:23 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
The Impossible Faith
Or, How Not to Start an Ancient Religion
by James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
(a list of 17 factors to be considered -- places where Christianity "did the wrong thing" in order to be a successful religion)
Or, How Not to Start an Ancient Religion
by James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
(a list of 17 factors to be considered -- places where Christianity "did the wrong thing" in order to be a successful religion)
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
TO BRIAN
Hello Brian,
You said: I can see why it is difficult to find Christianity true, the Jews don't follow the NT for a reason, they think it is false.
The reason that the Jews do not follow the New Testament is obvious. The New Testament is all about the Messiah, Jesus Christ. This Messiah was the special Messiah that the Jews were waiting for, mentioned throughout the Old Testament. The Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah so, of course, they would reject the NT.
I suggest that you read the following article:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm
Small random clip:
I also suggest that you read the Christian Thinktank's articles on copycat religions. I've listed them in the order that you should read them.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat2.html
And don't forget to read this one that has been posted twice:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
About the virgin birth: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm
Shalom
You said: I can see why it is difficult to find Christianity true, the Jews don't follow the NT for a reason, they think it is false.
The reason that the Jews do not follow the New Testament is obvious. The New Testament is all about the Messiah, Jesus Christ. This Messiah was the special Messiah that the Jews were waiting for, mentioned throughout the Old Testament. The Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah so, of course, they would reject the NT.
I suggest that you read the following article:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm
Small random clip:
Please read the whole article.Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources, Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence.
First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.
Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.
I also suggest that you read the Christian Thinktank's articles on copycat religions. I've listed them in the order that you should read them.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat2.html
And don't forget to read this one that has been posted twice:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
About the virgin birth: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm
Shalom
-
Felgar
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:24 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary, Canada
First let me say, that LS, Judah, and C2 have responded excellently regarding copycat religions. I love that 17 reasons article.HelpMeGod wrote:Jesus, I think, didn't mention anything about not worshipping pagan gods in the NT. So that being said, it is difficult for me to see that the NT is historically true when it shares many of the pagan stuff in it. So HOW do we know for sure that everything in the NT is actually true from the virgin birth of the savior (also in pagan history) to the resurrection of Jesus (also in pagan history)? I can see how the OT can be trusted more because pagans don't have that but it just seems like the NT was a copycat of pagan roots and the church fathers of that day added to the NT to make it read more elaborate than anything else of pagan literature.
Now, regarding Jesus and worshipping other Gods:
Mark 12:29-30
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
So Jesus said, love the ONE Lord with ALL your heart, soul, mind, and strength - and He said that this one thing is THE most important. Does that leave any room whatsoever for worshipping any pagan god? To me Brian, this underscores the validity of what everyone else has also been saying: You really need to focus on studying your OWN faith, and not someone else's. You have an entire book that's millennia old, containing only truth. For heaven's sake man, study that! The more you learn the more your faith will grow. Don't worry about lies - study truth instead.
I just thought of an awesome example... When people undergo training in counterfeit detection, what do they study? They spend the vast majority of their time becoming intimate with real bills, and very little looking at counterfeits. The working principle is that if you first know the truth, you can easily spot the fake. Spend time studying the truth Brian, not trying to detect the counterfeit.
Also, if you count the OT as more reliable (they are equally reliable pure truth btw) then study that... Check out the prophecies, and actually, check out Jesus' quote of David in the next passages after the greatest commandment that I just quotes in Mark, and also Matthew. Remember that all of Christianity is founded on the OT... And the whole Bible all-inclusive is about God's plan for humanity.
-
Believer
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Oregon
Some skeptic already refutted that article on a forum linked from http://www.tektonics.org , I don't have the link, but it was refutted, so I can't really trust that article.Judah wrote:The Impossible Faith
Or, How Not to Start an Ancient Religion
by James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
(a list of 17 factors to be considered -- places where Christianity "did the wrong thing" in order to be a successful religion)
So what all from pagan religions have there been? Creation stories, miracles, diciples, resurrections, gods and their sons, etc... How do I trust this, HOW can I? I mean, I thought there was only ONE creation story and that was right from our current Bible, but now from what I am reading there are pagan creation stories, this is only confusing me more. Our current Bible goes through the whole creation story and then somewhere in the OT it says not to worship pagan gods, well there were other creation stories besides the one from our current Bible, so what can be trusted? Also, with all the line up of pagan gods sending their sons to the earth, HOW do we know for sure that Jesus isn't a pagan either or the entire Bible for that matter? Past religions that have died off had lasted longer than Christianity. I am SOOOO confused and I don't know what to believe, I want the truth, I believe there is a God of some sort but as far as Jesus goes, I'm not sure. I believe he MAY have existed, but other pagans have twisted religion so badly, what left is there to believe in? I can see why there are agnostics/atheists, if we didn't have this pagan stuff, there would probably be FAR LESS agnostics/atheists in the world.
I am going to go as far to say what if our current Bible is the product of a trial and error pagan religion, meaning all the past pagan relgions failed so a new one was so carefully constructed that it WOULD stand out as the most favorable.