Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?

reply to post by DISRAELI

Again, the old tried-and-tested "If I were God, I would have done things differently" argument.
I'm not high enough in God's counsels to try to second-guess his plans and argue about what he should have been doing instead.

Funny...I've never seen you make that argument for Hitler or Rasputin. And they look like saints compared with "God".

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You are fully acquainted with all the posts I've ever made?
I feel honoured.

reply to post by iSHRED

This would explain a lot of the confusion I have as to why non-believers come to these religious threads and tell everyone over and over that our God is false. I see some of the same faces in every religion thread. It has never made since to me why they come. I don't believe in Ghosts(those being deceased humans), and I have never been to a haunting thread. It would not make since for me to visit those threads just to tell everyone that they are crazy, and that there are no such thing as ghosts. Yet there are some that come to every religion thread and do that very thing...

Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?

I dunno ... why do you think it wasn't? The bible says something like 500 people saw Jesus after the resurection and they believed .. and Thomas believed after He was with Jesus .. likewise the apostles .... they all seem pretty convinced to me.

Originally posted by VeniVidi
reply to post by iSHRED

 

This would explain a lot of the confusion I have as to why non-believers come to these religious threads and tell everyone over and over that our God is false. I see some of the same faces in every religion thread. It has never made since to me why they come. I don't believe in Ghosts(those being deceased humans), and I have never been to a haunting thread. It would not make since for me to visit those threads just to tell everyone that they are crazy, and that there are no such thing as ghosts. Yet there are some that come to every religion thread and do that very thing...

How can you not believe in ghosts if you believe in the resurrection and god?

Originally posted by DarknStormy


How can you not believe in ghosts if you believe in the resurrection and god?

pretty sure he means, the souls of dead people stuck on earth.


Actually thats what he said. Deceased humans becoming ghosts

reply to post by DISRAELI

You are fully acquainted with all the posts I've ever made?
I feel honoured.

If you thought we wouldn't notice the fact that you failed to address the point I made, you are sorely mistaken. If we do not defend the actions of Hitler, why defend the actions of "God"? If we're not meant to second guess the almighty, then how dare we question Hitler's methods?

You're the one who said we shouldn't second guess a murdering tyrant. I'm just calling your judgment into question.

reply to post by DarknStormy

How can you not believe in ghosts if you believe in the resurrection and god?

You may have a completely different definition or even idea of a "ghost" then I do. I certainly do not believe that Jesus Christ was a Ghost. And after the resurrection, I do not believe that the resurrected spirits will be flying around haunting someones Grandmothers attic.

Originally posted by VeniVidi
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

How can you not believe in ghosts if you believe in the resurrection and god?

You may have a completely different definition or even idea of a "ghost" then I do. I certainly do not believe that Jesus Christ was a Ghost. And after the resurrection, I do not believe that the resurrected spirits will be flying around haunting someones Grandmothers attic.

What I mean is you can put your faith into something which could be false yet to cannot accept that maybe that same spiritual realm operates on this planet in mysterious ways? Now I haven't seen a ghost but my grandmother swears she seen her deceased husband standing at the end of her bed one night and I tend to believe her for some reason.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

One reason for not addressing your point is that it was off-topic.
The topic of the thread is the Resurrection.
The discussion I was refusing to get into was whether God was following the most suitable strategy for achieving his purpose.
The question of whether God's behaviour is morally right or wrong has got nothing to do with the subject in hand.

When will you people get a grasp of the concept of "on-topic", and give up trying to divert every thread into your favourite hobby-horses?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?

I dunno ... why do you think it wasn't? The bible says something like 500 people saw Jesus after the resurection and they believed .. and Thomas believed after He was with Jesus .. likewise the apostles .... they all seem pretty convinced to me.

I understand that bit. But somebody had risen from the dead!!! A resurrection is no small feat, even back then I'd imagine. Surely, if it really happened, it should've sent shock waves throughout the nation, or at the very least, convinced more than just a handful of people, most of whom would've already had an inclination to believe it? But in the end, they were prosecuted for something the general populace didn't buy into.

reply to post by DISRAELI


The resurrection could mean many things and heres a few examples of different deities who have similar traits to the jesus story. Firstly lets take a look at Horus.

1.Born on December 25th

2.Born of a virgin

3.Birth was accompanied by a star in the east

4.After his birth was adored by three kings

5.Teacher at 12

6.Baptized/Ministry at 30

7.Had 12 disciples he traveled about with

8.Performing miracles: 8a. healing the sick, 8b. walking on water

9.Known by many names: "Lamb of God", "The Truth", "God's begotten(?) Son", "The Light", "The good Shepard"

10.After being betrayed:

11.was crucified

12.Dead-for 3 days

13.Resurrected

Now this guy was worshipped roughly 5000 years ago. Don't you find it uncanny that he can have pretty much every trait that Jesus does? And heres a few more which also has possible links to Christ. The numbers next to them are based off the above list.

•Attis (Greece, 1200 BC) — Attributes 1, 2, 11, 12, 13

•Krishna (India, 900 BC) — Attributes 2, 3, 8, 13

•Dionysos (Greece, 500 BC) — Attributes 1, 2, 8b + Turning Water into Wine, 9 ("God's son", "Alpha and Omega", ...), 13

•Mithras (Persia, 1200 BC) — Attributes 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 9 ("The Truth", "The Light"), Day of worship: "Sunday"

Don't you find it strange that at different parts of history the same story tends to repeat itself over and over again? This could mean only one thing, when they are talking about the resurrection, they are talking about the Suns 2-3 day journey at the solstice. On its last day, its makes its way back to its orignal point in the sky and is resurrected.

Could the 12 disciples also be symbology for the Suns Journey through the 12 constellations? With that if we want to dig a bit deeper, the 12 tribes of Israel? I tend to believe there maybe something to the bible but its more astrological than anything else.

reply to post by namine


Perhaps it was a Weekend at Bernie's routine, but they couldn't keep up the charade long enough to convince everyone. The body starts to decay immediately after death. Three days later, he would look a little worse for wear.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thanks for the info. Certainly something to look into.

I'm particularly interested in the documents that support that theory.


reply to post by DarknStormy


I think I've heard an argument like this on a Zeitgeist documentary ages ago. I'm going to have to watch it again and pay extra attention.

What are the chances so many resurrection stories could be that similar??

reply to post by namine


The thread title is a begging the question fallacy. It was not convincing to "some people", it was very convincing to others.. like the people who saw Him resurrected. Of special note, His half-brothers James and Jude who weren't believers until the resurrection.

After the resurrection, followers of Jesus were still prosecuted and put to death, but why?

What makes you think that many of the first generation, those who literally followed Jesus, were persecuted and killed? Acts records two killed, one for reasons not given, and the other for a blasphemy pretty much unrelated to Jesus, and he was second generation, not first. There are stories, of course, and by the end of the First Century, some sporadic Roman persecutions, but those are one and two generations after Jesus' resurrection.

A resurrection is no small feat, even back then I'd imagine. Surely, if it really happened, it should've sent shock waves throughout the nation, or at the very least, convinced more than just a handful of people, most of whom would've already had an inclination to believe it? But in the end, they were prosecuted for something the general populace didn't buy into.

Why wasn't Lazarus a bigger deal then? Peter's Tabitha? Paul's Eutychus? OK, I think Eutychus actually was a swoon. The widow's son doesn't even have a recorded name, nor Jairus' daughter (OK, even Jesus thought she was a swoon).

So, Jesus' failure to cause a stir is either good news or bad news, and that's up to you. Evidently, rising from the dead just wasn't that big a deal back then, or maybe it's just that such stories are convincing only if you're an eyewitness. How different are they from ghost stories (a literary genre that existed back then), really?
-

reply to post by namine

Thanks for the info. Certainly something to look into.

I'm particularly interested in the documents that support that theory.

My pleasure!
Yes, there are many. Of course, lots of them (if not all) have been "shot down" by those who refuse to consider the possibility, or who are convinced that their version of what happened is correct and above reproach....

but, in my view, it's very compelling evidence. And it wasn't something I went out looking for. Just found it in my general "searching" for ideas and thoughts.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The thread title is a begging the question fallacy. It was not convincing to "some people", it was very convincing to others.. like the people who saw Him resurrected. Of special note, His half-brothers James and Jude who weren't believers until the resurrection.

Thor was very convincing to the Nordics, too. But like the Nazarenes, they weren't what we would call educated...a child's magic trick would be top-class sorcery to them, if that tells you anything.

Originally posted by iSHRED
The reason people doubt the resurrection of Jesus and doubt God in general is very simple. Once you acknowledge God as being true, you must also acknowledge that what he says is true. Once you acknowledge that what he says is true, you also realize that the way you have been living is against God, you have been choosing evil over good your whole life. Then the choice of, do i accept God's plan for redemption which includes an end to my wicked ways, or do i deny it. No one can logically deny it in the sense of, 'I choose hell over heaven' So instead of choosing hell they just deny it's existence and that of all things true.

Luke 10:22, "All things are delivered (revealed) to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the son, and he to whom the son will reveal him."

Working out Salvation with fear and trembling.

reply to post by DISRAELI

One reason for not addressing your point is that it was off-topic.
The topic of the thread is the Resurrection.
The discussion I was refusing to get into was whether God was following the most suitable strategy for achieving his purpose.
The question of whether God's behaviour is morally right or wrong has got nothing to do with the subject in hand.

When will you people get a grasp of the concept of "on-topic", and give up trying to divert every thread into your favourite hobby-horses?

When you start giving us decent answers, And no, implying that abandoning our sense of reason out of fear of the afterlife is a perfectly acceptable strategy for unlocking salvation is not a decent answer.

But okay - we'll stick to the topic. Jesus' salvation isn't convincing because it happened in the most unconvincing of circumstances with the most unconvincing of conditions. For someone who could so easily have locked down every conceivable explanation, leaving only divine intervention as a plausible answer, he sure did leave a lot of loose ends hanging around.

And saying, "He's testing us" is not a logical conclusion. Hence the Hitler and Rasputin references. If they weren't given an inch for their strategies, then the death and resurrection of Jesus should be taken with at least a big fistful of salt. I'm assuming at least a few people here have watched some version of CSI on television - is motivation and cognitive process as demonstrated by strategy analysis not an important part of discerning the truth behind events? At the very least, it helps to underline which parts don't add up.

That's why it isn't convincing. Considering the number of ways Jesus could have pull his little stunt, the way he supposedly did it is one of the weakest and most covert methods I can think of for someone who has all the power in the universe.