Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yeah, Im so sorry for relying on the testimony of those present at the scene, extra-biblical accounts of the method and application of crucifixion, and the historical record of the most-documented death in human history.

LOL! The most documented death in history? There you go again! How can a death be documented while there is NO BODY!? LOL

7 Fatal Injuries (That People Somehow Survived)

You ever think that maybe its true simply because some people need it to be true. Some people just instinctively gravitate towards love. While others must be drawn to it. Those that need to be drawn to it might need the resurrection so that they can believe in his words. If they believe in the resurrection than it becomes much easier to believe in "turn the other cheek".

I believe in the resurrection, because I needed it to be true for me to listen to what he said. I mean really listen, the kind of listening that produces action. Without his resurrection I would not have believed in my own.

To try to take the resurrection away from me is to take away my truth that the son of God has promised me that I have been forgiven and loved by God. Everything he promised is worthless to me without the resurrection. My path to him was through the resurrection. Both his physical resurrection and my spiritual resurrection.

You have to be careful when it comes to matters of faith. Just as you want me to believe that your truth is sufficient for you should you not also grant me the same? Disagreeing with the resurrection is fine, we can love each other even if we dispute the resurrection. But when you attack the resurrection you attack the faith that saved me. You don't want me to attack the faith that saves you, why are you doing to me?

So if a man clearly tells you that God has told him to believe in the resurrection, who are you? This is how religion starts you see. We all need to be right, so right that we let our disagreements lead to personal attacks that lead to separation.

Anyone who is truly looking to love will put away such differences in the name of love. Love does not need to be attacked or defended. Love needs to be loved.

At least this is what Jesus says about love.

reply to post by sacgamer25

Just as you want me to believe that your truth is sufficient for you should you not also grant me the same? Disagreeing with the resurrection is fine, we can love each other even if we dispute the resurrection. But when you attack the resurrection you attack the faith that saved me. You don't want me to attack the faith that saves you, why are you doing to me?

Hi again, sac.

I know this was not asked of me directly, but I'd like to contribute.

I believe that "The truth is not determined by a show of hands". While I agree that some people might need it to be true, and by accepting it as such they are able to turn a corner and become more productive and have more peace of mind, that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Same with my beliefs of reincarnation and an afterlife; that my dad is really there when I dream about him. Can I prove it's true? No. I WANT to believe it's true. Maybe it's not, maybe it is. I don't know. But, like everyone else, I try to keep moving forward with courage and clarity of thinking. I might be dead wrong - in the literary and literal sense - but, it's the way I can manage my life.

What I'd like to find out is if others recognize that what they believe is part and parcel of their will to live....
but I'd also like to know the truth.
Therefore, my pain. I don't know, I know that I can't know, and I'm as human as everyone else. I'd just like to find a place where there's SOMETHING we can all agree on.
Love, in my opinion, is the anchoring truth.

reply to post by sacgamer25


This thread is entitled: "Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?"

I have expressed my opinion of why it isn't convincing to me.

If the resurrection is true, either literally, allegorically, or spiritually, it is something that, as you say requires faith. Trying to use science to prove the supernatural, especially in NuT's case is unrealistic.

I am quite sure that my skepticism isn't going to rattle people who "need" to believe it, or have faith in it to be true. Faith is ALL that's required to believe it. We can/should/must leave the science out of it, as it is an unprovable, unnatural and an unscientific event.

Please, don't throw in the "love" card, as in, if you loved people you wouldn't contest their beliefs. Jesus, the person, challenged people's beliefs, and he did it out of love.

reply to post by windword


Faith is woo-woo lingo for "I have what I consider to be very good reasons to lie to myself, and the reasons you have provided for being honest with myself aren't good enough."

You can't really argue with that kind of mentality. It's akin to explaining the laws of physics to someone who is caught on a ledge 12 stories in the air. All you're going to do is remind them of why they closed their eyes in the first place.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Imagine for a second the ultimate evolution of man. Love, if everything we did, we did as one instead of individuals all of our problems would be solved. If we would research in the name of all instead of one and were provided limitless resources for that research could you imagine where we could be in just a short time?

In my opinion God represents the ultimate evolution of man. We are here to learn how to love, because we don't really get it. The problem is the pursuit of happiness has become the pursuit of financial gain. When the only true happiness would be the pursuit of society. Imagine the type of home technology we could have today if we only focused on technology that would actually enhance our quality of life.

I pointed this out to show a concept in the bible. I think we need to understand that heaven and hell our real in a spiritual since during one's life. In the afterlife I leave that up to God. But heaven and hell are emotional states of mind. When you sin, love leaves you; God is love, so God has left you. Even nature tells us that love and sin are not compatible. God is with you, your in heaven with him. God leaves you when you are in sin you are in the darkness, hell, apart from him.

The problem is we have indoctrinated ourselves into a world where pursuit of happiness is pursuit of wealth and pursuit of God is religion. There is no happiness in wealth and there is no God in religion. God cannot be defined by religion; God is love, the ultimate evolution of us. Did he evolve? I don't know, but I do know he made us to evolve. Evolve so that we may become "like him".

This is why the pursuit of wealth is a sin. Because it prevents us from pursing love. Sure we have to work and we should work hard, and through hard work we may achieve wealth, but if we pursued it, it will enslave us. If instead we found wealth in our pursuit of love, then maybe we will return that wealth to the love that gave it to us. He told us exactly what to do with his money, feed the hungry, the orphan, and the widow. Make sure they also a good quality of life.

This is what is so great about love and forgiveness. The one who pursued wealth out of greed, all you need to do is give your excess back to God by doing what he said. This is repentance that leads to holiness.

As long as we teach the way to happiness is sin we will never overcome it. The way to happiness is love. If America were truly the country that founded the dream "pursuit of happiness" than we should all be pursing love. Right?

In pursuit of our dream we have chased after an idol. We should be pursuing happiness but it is not found in financial gain. Happiness is found in love, but instead of love we pursue money. We push are children through school, why? So they can hurry up and be smart enough to get a job? Why not let our children be children?

You know spend more time developing social skills and bonding skills and less time worrying about 2+2. Gear their education to their needs and desires, give them more authority to the direction of their life. Children are much smarter and more capable than what we give them credit for.

I have a novel idea. Let's teach children how to love before we teach them ANYTHING else.

Let's teach them that love is always the best idea. Let's teach them that working together for the best of mankind is what is best for them. Let's teach an entire generation of children how to love before we teach them ANYTHING else. So that they know for certain that love is the only valuable wisdom. Then all of the wisdom they learn in school, maybe they will apply it to love.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Faith is woo-woo lingo for "I have what I consider to be very good reasons to lie to myself, and the reasons you have provided for being honest with myself aren't good enough."

You can't really argue with that kind of mentality. It's akin to explaining the laws of physics to someone who is caught on a ledge 12 stories in the air. All you're going to do is remind them of why they closed their eyes in the first place.

Very profound.
Way to go. lop;;;`

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

This thread is entitled: "Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?"

I have expressed my opinion of why it isn't convincing to me.

If the resurrection is true, either literally, allegorically, or spiritually, it is something that, as you say requires faith. Trying to use science to prove the supernatural, especially in NuT's case is unrealistic.

I am quite sure that my skepticism isn't going to rattle people who "need" to believe it, or have faith in it to be true. Faith is ALL that's required to believe it. We can/should/must leave the science out of it, as it is an unprovable, unnatural and an unscientific event.

Please, don't throw in the "love" card, as in, if you loved people you wouldn't contest their beliefs. Jesus, the person, challenged people's beliefs, and he did it out of love.

edit on 28-2-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Yes but remember this advice given to us from the bible. We should never put stumbling blocks in front of our brothers paths. Just as I have not tried to put one in your path. I have merely defended my path without condemning yours. I am simply asking for you to do the same.

I am a Christian, which when I say it, quite literally means I follow Christ. I live my life according to his teaching to the best of my ability at all times.

You have a different path, but they both point to love. And everything comes together in love, because there is no separation in love. Therefore I see no reason to put a stumbling block on your path to love. Remember the bible even says Christ is only the capstone to those who are perishing.

Are you perishing? I assume you believe that you are not; therefore Christ is not a stumbling block to you. If Christ is not a stumbling block to you why should I try to make him one? But if my faith is weak your words may very well become a stumbling block to me.

I hope that helps clarify what I said.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by namine

 

In the Gospel accounts, the Resurrection was convincing enough to anybody who saw the resurrected Jesus.
That sets up a third option; the Resurrection WAS convincing, but only revealed directly to a small number of people.

In the second half of your post, you acknowledge this possibility (thus exposing the false dilemma in the first half), but you argue that it was the wrong strategy,
I won't argue on that point; I leave it to God to work out for himself what strategy he wants to follow.

Well put. Revealed is such a key word here.
Matthew 13
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thank you. I came up with it myself. No dictionary required - which I do find amusing, because dictionaries have failed to explore the depth of nuance and intention that is inherent with the subtleties of written or spoken communication. A dictionary is the literary equivalent of a drawing book. You get the basics, but you miss the emotion, and that's half the conversation right there.

Anyway...

I find it perplexing and at the same time fascinating. There's a part of me that wants to just throw my hands up and say, "Whatever!" But somehow, I'm inspired to keep digging, to keep asking and challenging.

Using my previous example, I'd like to get the person off of such a ledge because their fear of falling traps their emotions. While they are stuck in that state, they will never believe in their own strength, their own power, their own ability to say, "Dammit, this is not me. I refuse to be a wailing child hiding under the blankets. I will march into the darkness and beat that cursed boogeyman into submission with a flashlight!"

But here's one of the many small catches that all hinge on the same basic primitive trigger - we like to be controlled. We like to give everything over to someone who knows what they are doing. Follow orders, get rewarded. Lack of power equates with abundance of freedom. Freedom from fear, from hunger, from uncertainty, from knowledge, from pain...

See, we don't want to be free. Not really. We want to be happy. And as long as we're convinced that creepy things are waiting outside the door to kill us as soon as we unlock it, we're happier than a couple of bugs in a rug. We'll gladly take those chains and brands if it means the tiger stays away. That is...until we realize what the chains and brands really mean, and learn that the tiger would have been a much kinder fate.

But we don't see that yet. We don't understand what we have not experienced, which makes this whole conversation a conundrum really. And that's where faith comes in -

"I want there to be a purpose to life, a master of the universe, more than I want to create my own meaning and purpose. I want someone who knows what they're doing more than I want to learn it myself - and possibly die in the process. I want to be mastered, because it's safer than relying on myself." And thus, faith was born.

reply to post by sacgamer25

I have a novel idea. Let's teach children how to love before we teach them ANYTHING else.

And I think that, as caring parents, from the moment of birth, that is what most of us do. It's not until our children are parents themselves that they can truly appreciate the profundity of unconditional love....
but we set an example by our earliest parenting and nurturing of them - evidenced by the way we "instantly fall in love with them" when we become parents.

Perhaps the idea of "God" as the loving father needs to be looked at from that point of view; then, we can nod our heads and shake one another's hand, and say, "I get it." No dramatic archetypal hero figure to illustrate it or teach it. It just IS. The love of a parent who anticipated and welcomed the arrival of their child knows what I'm talking about. I have 'faith' that in the process of conceiving, nurturing, caring for, and teaching our children - as well as keeping them alive when they can't do it on their own - the actual "source" of the religious mythology and methodology is partially explained.

Come to think of it - when priests are forbidden to marry or "legitimately" procreate and not be exposed to the overwhelming, overarching emotion and bondedness that is REAL LIFE LOVE, are they not deprived of the actual understanding of what it means to love unconditionally??

Have you guys ever read "The Monk"? A classic by Matthew G Lewis, to which I was introduced as an undergrad studying Liberal Arts and in particular Western Civilization. Quite impacting......
just pulled it off my shelf to cite the author. In 1952 it was 150 years old. "Prerequisite reading", in my opinion, for any subsequent theological study.

Here's a link to a free online source for it:
www.gutenberg.org...

reply to post by sacgamer25

We should never put stumbling blocks in front of our brothers paths.

But, with all due respect, sac (and I mean that), isn't insisting that "the Bible" is true doing just that??

reply to post by wildtimes


Yes Wild you taught your children love, and I taught my children love. But why not send them to school until maybe 7-8 to learn love and arts. Then start with the other less meaningful knowledge.

This way its not just our kids that get the benifit of the lesson. We know that the creator is love, but some kids do not. Even athiest can't argue aginst teaching children how to love.

reply to post by wildtimes


Maybe the way I say it at times because I am too passionate about my belief.

See this is how God works in my life. Before I instructed winword about stumbling blocks I had not truly looked at his point of view towards Christians. Which is always defensive.

Funny thing I guess me and winword are in the same boat, and you too. Because I believe in Christ in ways that no one else does I am always having to defend. The one difference is NO ONE agrees with me.

Personally I don't think I could be a stumbling block to someone who was already pursuing love apart from Christ, but your point is taken.

reply to post by windword


I guess I am simply saying acknowledge that the bible does contain a path to love. Just as you would like me to acknowledge your path. We both have a right to defend our paths so long as in our defense we don't directly attack someone else's.

The death and resurrection of Christ is the most recorded event for anything dating more than a few hundred years ago is a true statement. It does not make it fact of fiction, but it does lead itself more too at least some of the story being fact.

What you are saying is it is impossible for my truth to be true. How can my truth be anything but the truth. If my truth is in some way harmful to myself or others than please correct me. If my truth leads to love than it must be the truth. If your truth leads to love than it must be truth. Because love does not lie and love is always in agreement with love.

reply to post by sacgamer25


I think that good parenting begins with love (which is inescapable in a healthy, natural situation), and that love never ends. I remember when I was pregnant with my first child attending Lamaze class. The instructor asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand (it's a disease, I'm taking meds for it! ) and said, "I'm really concerned and worried and focused on whether my baby is okay. Does that worry ever go away?"

And she looked at me with honest eyes, and said, "No."
I learned a great deal that day. She was right.

Plato (Socrates) talked about music as the foremost important thing to teach children (of schooling age), then 'gymnastic', a physical mastery of the body. Music is a profound vein in the concept of love - it, in my opinion, more closely illustrates 'God' than any other man-made product can do. Art, in all its forms, is our attempt to capture God.

No one can adequately "describe" a beautiful symphony or a great pop song or a painting or a sculpture to someone who hasn't heard it or seen it -- and even less so if the listener has no musical, artistic, or literary knowledge or experience. Do you see what I mean?

We can show them the printed lyrics, or put the sheet music in front of them, but unless a child/person has learned real music - and participated in, especially!, the various aspects of it ---- to be more anecdotal, I started music as a kid, learned flute, choir, piano, etc and by college had been part of a church choir, a marching band, a performance band, a symphony orchestra (we even made a record, and I got to play the piccolo solo!!) and an audience member at performances of such.........

and I can no sooner describe (let alone come close to it!) what it's "like" to be part of that to someone with no musical training, than I can explain the crashing love of a parent for their child.

That is how I see 'God' - not a person, not a crucified guy, not a book or a movie or a compilation of ancient writings or modern literature. None of those even come close to what is real and can only be absorbed with the spirit.

This is my deepest-seated belief. It's all I can come up with to analogize the unspeakable beauty of God. Therefore, no "human story" or "vision" can adequately touch it in words or illustrations. Period.

Namaste,
w

reply to post by wildtimes


Yes I agree. Maybe someday so will everyone else. We will evolve or we will kill ourselves. Hang on its one wild ride.

reply to post by sacgamer25

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

We should never put stumbling blocks in front of our brothers paths.

But, with all due respect, sac (and I mean that), isn't insisting that "the Bible" is true doing just that??

edit on 28-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

^^^^ THIS!

While I think that there are some lovely things written in the Bible and valuable advise given by Jesus, I don't use the Bible as my guide, I often disagree with what Jesus says, and there are things that I reject outright.

The Bible has been placed in front of me as a "stumbling block" by many Christians here on ATS, in the workplace and in family. I am constantly being admonished and told that I'm an immoral individual, going to hell for not believing in "Jesus," and that I am Satan's servant.

Believe it or not, I thinks it's very important to have these debates and challenge those who have not thought through their reasons for believing what they do and projecting superiority over others. I also think it's important and healthy to be exposed to other's opinion and different ways of thinking and the reasons that they have come to their various conclusions.

Originally posted by wildtimes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Fine, then don't get upset with me for pointing out that YOU are not telling the truth about the crucifixion, that YOU DONT KNOW the truth, and that you are spreading an exaggerated, fringe picture of it.

Yeah, Im so sorry for relying on the testimony of those present at the scene, extra-biblical accounts of the method and application of crucifixion, and the historical record of the most-documented death in human history.

What was I thinking?

That you know everything and everyone else is stupid. That's what you were apparently thinking.
Now, NuT, I really am done "debating" with you. It's a hopeless mess. Bon voyage on your job and your life and its aftermath. God bless.

Oh, and "well done you".

edit on 28-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

What an absurd straw man, I never said I know everything nor did I say everyone else is stupid. You've regressed again to just trying to ridicule.

I'm still severely disappointed that no one attempted to answer my question regarding love and tyranny. It seemed like such a good question, and yet it's lost among the fruitless bickering that often pervades these threads the way ammonia pervades the sick room. I had hoped for more...

But maybe I should lower my expectations. After all, the internet has enlightened me to the reality of some websites and forums that share a frighteningly balanced degree of breathing room with the intellectual types and...well, others.



But if anyone is actually interested in reviewing my query to the general populace of ATS, here is the link to the concerned post...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I sincerely hope someone will take this none-too-subtle prod seriously. After all, I come here with serious questions - is a serious answer too much to hope for? On second thought, "I can typing!" seems to pretty much answer that question. I'll just hope the best, yeah?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Did you read the post I made saying I would comment this week on it? If you missed it back up a page or two.