Easter Is Coming in 8 Weeks

Quote: FrGamble

I am at wits end and my finger is on the block button.

Wow, I really hit a never here. I was just
making an observation, that's all. In my
world people believe in god because it's
what they were taught, or it's what they
want. My wife believes for both reasons,
she was raised that way, and she wants
with all her heart to believe it. So she
does. I wasn't raised that way, see no good
reason to believe something I can't prove,
so I don't.

Sorry if this offends you, padre, I don't know
what else to say.

Quote: Dalex64

I just read that after the resurrection, Jesus was not even recognizable to his disciples. (wikipedia)
Conclusion: It wasn't him, yet eventually he convinced them that he was.

I have wondered why that was left in
the Bible, it doesn't make sense. If
they didn't recognize him, how would
they know who it was. Why did his
followers wait so long to write anything
down, decades. And we don't even know
who wrote the Bible gospels. Decades
later they would just be recording stories
they heard mixed in with what they saw,
if they actually saw anything, that is.

Memories are funny things, the more time
that passes the more faulty they are.

Quote: FrGamble

It's actually an old but rare objection to the Resurrection. Most people when they begin exploring it realize that it doesn't hold any more water than the other theory that Jesus was just mostly dead and recovered from a Roman Crucifixion. The only explanation that fits the historical facts is the miraculous and glorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But the bible says they did not recognize him, and did not believe it was him. Why didn't they? There are also references to sticking fingers into wounds. Why was he so hard to recognize, and why didn't they believe it was him?

Quote: Nareed

The only explanation is that it never happened.

Supposedly Jesus was a big deal in Judea. I mean there was great controversy and much talk. Now, if this be so, then if he had resurrected and hung around for weeks afterwards, as the myth states, there would have been a record of it somewhere. The story would have spread like wildfire to neighboring provinces, Roman soldiers returning home from duty in Judea would spread it around, and so on.

This is pretty much what happened. By the year 49 AD Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of so much trouble in their community over this "Christus". The story spread like wildfire all the way to Rome so quickly that in less than 15 years after the Crucifixion there was such a growing movement of early Christians that the Roman Empire had to kick out an entire population to keep the peace. This edict and its reason being that of Jesus Christ are documented by outside sources very reliably.

Quote: FrGamble

it doesn't hold any more water than the other theory that Jesus was just mostly dead and recovered .

But it does hold water, it holds a boatload
of it. We know for an absolute fact that
people proclaimed dead wake up later
all the time. People that have been declared
dead by modern doctors. 2000 years ago
if you looked dead, couldn't be seen breathing,
you were dead. Of course they had to be
wrong sometimes, just like they are today.

Occam's Razor applies here, the most obvious
explanation is the correct one. Jumping right
past the obvious and proclaiming it was a miracle
of god is what doesn't hold any water. And
where did Jesus go after 40 days. Did he just
disappear with no fanfare? If he was going bodily
to heaven, why not make a big deal out of it,
let everybody see it. Unless it didn't really happen,
of course.

Quote: Dalex64

But the bible says they did not recognize him, and did not believe it was him. Why didn't they? There are also references to sticking fingers into wounds. Why was he so hard to recognize, and why didn't they believe it was him?

Tradition?

In the story of Joseph, his brothers don't recognize him when they go to Egypt to get grain.

Quote: FrGamble

This is pretty much what happened. By the year 49 AD Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of so much trouble in their community over this "Christus". The story spread like wildfire all the way to Rome so quickly that in less than 15 years after the Crucifixion [..]

While information moved more slowly in ancient times, 15 years is too long to qualify as "quickly."

But, what do written records say about the alleged resurrection?

I've no doubt Jesus existed. I've no doubt he's dead, either, and has been for 2,000 years, much like everyone else alive at that time.

Quote: Nareed

But, what do written records say about the alleged resurrection?
.

I don't think there is a written record
outside the Bible. He apparently
didn't show himself to anybody who
wasn't a follower.

Quote: Nareed

But, what do written records say about the alleged resurrection?

BTW; what a Jewish community in Rome, or elsewhere, said about Jesus or the resurrection is of small import in this case. My point is that there ought to be third-party accounts of such a momentous event. If some enthusiastic disciples made it to Rome and stirred up the locals, that doesn't qualify at all.

Occam's razor does not say the simplest explination IS the correct one, but that it is most likely correct. It does not preclude a more improbable explaination from being correct.

There is another philosophy that goes along the lines of examining the possibilities, eliminating them, and then settling on the remaining one no matter how improbable it is. Now while the character who said that is fictional, the author is not. Just like Occam.

(Woo-hoo, post 100. Nothing compared to you titans, though. If you believe in that sort of thing)