Do you believe that Christ was raised from the dead as a fact of history?

Soul Winner

I do. But I think most Christians don't. When you actually get down to the nub of the basis of our Faith most Christians think Christ being raised from the dead is just a recitation of creed. Before I was converted to Christianity from Catholicism that’s how I perceived this fact to be, just creed.

Who here actually believes that this event took place as an actual ‘fact’ of history just like we know Pompeii was destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius as an actual fact of history?

The Apostle Paul did and he said. “If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain” 1 Cor 15 v 17. So he at least believed this was an actual historical fact and he wrote two thirds of the New Testament so that would make him a good starting point at least.

Before you answer yeah or nay though please think about it for a minute or two. If He actually rose then that makes Him pretty high cotton doesn’t it? Giving validity to the claims He made about himself before His death. Two of them being: “I and the Father are one” and “All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me”.

I know I am biased as I myself am convinced of the truth of this but that’s not why I’m asking the question. I’m curious to know from confessed Christians especially who have thought about it for a few minutes whether or not they truly believe that Jesus The Christ actually rose from the dead as a fact of history.

If you are not convinced then I recommend listening to or reading the treatment Dr Gene Scott PhD. Stanford University gives this subject. Ever since I heard it I’ve been totally convinced and have been a Christian ever since. That was 18 years ago.

Sapien

Soul Winner wrote:

I do.

Evidence must be proportionate to the claim. I can't really think what evidence I would have to be shown that could lead me to conclude that a man rose from the dead.

Spyral

I cannot comment as I am a Catholic and therefore by your definition not a Chrisitan even though all chrisitan denominations are off shoots of the one true church.

If you still want my view :

If you believe something then to you it is a fact. It's that simple. I believe that this bloke got nailed to a cross, died rather quickly, was stabbed with a spear to make sure and then got taken and sealed in a tomb. Then he got up in 3 days and walked out fresh as a daisy. No contest

JimiTime

Absolutely! Of course I believe he was raised up. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't be a christian TBH, I've never heard any christian dispute this, even catholics.

interestinguser

The idea of regarding something like this as a historical fact is ridiculous TBH. If you want to personally believe in it then that's cool, go right ahead, but don't confuse this is thinking that is a historical fact. Historical facts do not require belief.

Tzetze

Do you believe that Christ was raised from the dead as a fact of history?

I most certainly don't believe this. It's more likely that his followers removed his body from the crypt/tomb/grave, and claimed that he was risen, etc.

Is there any record/mention of Pontius Pilate, or Herod, or any other non-follower/believer coming face to face with Jesus after he'd died?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Absolutely! Of course I believe he was raised up. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't be a christian TBH, I've never heard any christian dispute this, even catholics.

Was thinking the same thing (the Catholic bit, not the belief in Jesus bit obviously)

I'm pretty sure all Catholic believe, or are at least supposed to believe, that Jesus actually rose from the dead as described in the Bible.

This is why Catholics are Christians. So I'm not sure what the OP means when he said he changed from Catholicism to Christianity. Surely he means he changed to a form of Protestantism?

Soul Winner

Sapien wrote:

Evidence must be proportionate to the claim. I can't really think what evidence I would have to be shown that could lead me to conclude that a man rose from the dead.

Well there is no hard evidence as such that you could point to and say there’s the evidence? Do we have evidence that Hitler lived? Yes film archives and eye witness testimony and so on. Like wise with Jesus. Ok we don't have film archives but we do have eye witness testimony. Testimony that has been scrutinized for centuries and has never been proved false or misleading. In fact Frank morrison wrote a book entitled "Who moved the stone" that started off as an attempt to disprove the story. He ended up writing a classic which is held up as one of the best defenses of the Faith even convincing himself.

There maybe no hard evidence but there is plenty of internal evidence. If you read the record then what immediately leaps out at you is that these men who wrote their story sound like simple minded reporters writing down what they saw and experienced. If they were not then they were liars and frauds and knew that they were liars and frauds.

So how can you resolve the issue? Well take the story of when Jesus fed the five thousand at Bethsaida. Now get out of the frame of reference of Christianity and go into a frame of reference that "We are known frauds making up this story". If they were frauds then why does one Gospel story have Jesus ask Phillip where to buy food? Because in another Gospel it states that Phillip was from Bethsaida and that's where the miracle was performed so it makes sense to ask Phillip. You don't find that attention to detail in a group of liars. Another example is in Mark's Gospel which every scholar agrees was written to non Jews. In it Mark has Jesus referring to himself as "The Son of Man" which to a non Jew means He was just a normal man. Now if Mark is a liar and is writing to people whom he wants to convince Jesus is the Son of God then why does he hurt his story by having Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man? When Jesus was talking He was in Jewish environment where they understood that the phrase Son of Man meant the Messiah. Its little things like that that tip the scale. They were not lying and there plenty more examples but too many to go into now. Ok I'll give one more. The women who first reported the resurrection? In those times the testimony of women was not to be considered so if your gonna have somebody report the resurrection then better that if come from a man as more people are likely to believe. And sure even if they believe that there is a God they know they are liars and going to the wrong place. I believe that they at least believed it was true. But like I said Dr Gene Scott treats this better than anyone else I know and I recommend taking an hour or so out to listen to it.

With enough study on the subject any one can be convinced of its truth. But like Dr Gene Scott says "most people assume it can't happened and therefore never even bother to look" I can respect someone who takes the time to look and comes back not convinced than someone who doesn’t accept it but never looked.

Extreme-LoopZ

He must have, beacause now you can eat him in the form of bread evey time you go to mass:) but seriously, I believe that Jesus was a historical figure, and that gave people guidance while he was alive, but I don't believe that him rising from the dead is historical fact.

donaghs

"converted to Christianity from Catholicism".

I've often heard Born-Again Christians make this distinction. It always seems to me to be more like old-fashioned Protestant anti-Catholicism.

Soul Winner

Spyral wrote:

I cannot comment as I am a Catholic and therefore by your definition not a Chrisitan even though all chrisitan denominations are off shoots of the one true church.

Sorry mate I didn't mean to offend you or any Catholics. I have great respect for Catholics. The institution I'm not too sure about but the best people I know are either Catholics or ex Catholics.

What I meant in my statement was that when I was a Catholic I thought I believed in the Resurrection of Christ. But it took a source outside Catholicism to convince me. So it was from outside Catholicism that I became a true Christian, which at its base level is a follower of Christ.

I'm not saying that Catholics are not Christian, I'm merely pointing out that I wasn't a true Christian when I was a Catholic because I didn’t really believe then what I believe now.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

As a Catholic, of course I believe He was raised from the dead. It's a basic tenant of my faith. If I believe it happened then of course I believe it is a fact.
I don't get the reference to Christian V Catholic. Catholics don't take it as purely creed, we have to believe it happened. It you did not believe so when you were a Catholic then you were not in fact a true Catholic.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote:

Testimony that has been scrutinized for centuries and has never been proved false or misleading.

How would you?

I saw Jim Morrison in my bed room last night. Demonstrate that I'm wrong or mistaken ...

Soul Winner wrote:

these men who wrote their story sound like simple minded reporters writing down what they saw and experienced.

Is that why none of the different accounts actually match up (where was Mary when Jesus' tomb was opened?)

Soul Winner wrote:

If they were not then they were liars and frauds and knew that they were liars and frauds.

Seemingly asylum seekers get cars from the government. I know this because I've talked to people (taxi drivers mostly) who have actually seen them in these cars. Why would the taxi driver lie to me? In fact it was in a national newspaper, wasn't it. Papers don't lie. So they must be getting cars ...

... except they weren't getting cars.

Its amazing what people believe, even in this day and age of science, reason and mass media. People believe what they want to believe. You think all the other religions in the world don't have equally convinced "eye-witnesses"

Soul Winner wrote:

You don't find that attention to detail in a group of liars.

Actually you do. Liars are more likely to include specific details in their accounts, in an effort to make them more believable. People who are genuinely recalling something from a long time ago (the Bible was written decades after the events it describes) tend not to remember specific. The very fact that there is specific detail about people who were dead when the Bible was written demonstrates that it is probably made up. People have a hard enough time remembering the details of what they did, let alone the details of what other people were doing. Think back to a birthday part you had say 20 years ago. Can you remember what you were doing? Perhaps you can. Now, can you remember what everyone else was doing around you?

Soul Winner wrote:

In it Mark has Jesus referring to himself as "The Son of Man" which to a non Jew means He was just a normal man. Now if Mark is a liar and is writing to people whom he wants to convince Jesus is the Son of God then why does he hurt his story by having Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man?

Who says the author of Mark was a liar. The author could have been a true believer, in fact it is widely suggest that he was. Mark is a product of a widening Christian base. Most likely wasn't born when Jesus was supposed to be walking the Earth. The author is simply reciting what he has been brought up to believe.

Its kinda like asking why would Tom Cruise lie about Scientology? Most likely he isn't lying about Scientology, he really believes it. That doesn't mean that what the Scientologists say about L. Ron Hubbard is true.

One cannot ignore the fact that the gospels are being written either by people who have an interest in spreading Christianity or by true believers. If you want to see what that means just look at a religion like Scientology.

You might as well say no one would lie about being having an anal probe, therefore UFO abductions must be real.

Soul Winner wrote:

The women who first reported the resurrection?

Bad example.

Try and write out, using the different accounts in the gospels, what exactly the order of events in of the discovery were and what the different people were doing. Assume that all accounts are correct and factual.

You end up with a very interesting chronology, people moving very quickly and forgetting things a the drop of a hat.

BrianCalgary

The number of eyewitnesses to the event. Paul mentions over 500.

But to take it one step further, the number of people who were willing to die and be tortured as a result of this one event.

Reason tells us that the event happened. historical analysis tells us that the event happened.

Someone mentioned that the apostles stole the body. That is an impossibility based on the number of guards, both Roman and temple guards, at the tomb. that whole theory has been discredited.

Back to historical analysis, on doing this exercise a historian takes into consideration all accounts of an event, pieces together the reports and comes up with the most likely occurence.

With the resurrection there is not a sigle piece of evidence competing with the accounts of the NT. Since the reigning authorities had the most to lose from the rise of Christianity, history tells us that if teh resurrection did not happen that there would be ample writings from the opponents of Christianity setting the record straight. However there are a grand total of NONE, 0, nil , zilch, nada.

TheBigLebowski

BrianCalgary wrote:

With the resurrection there is not a sigle piece of evidence competing with the accounts of the NT. Since the reigning authorities had the most to lose from the rise of Christianity, history tells us that if teh resurrection did not happen that there would be ample writings from the opponents of Christianity setting the record straight. However there are a grand total of NONE, 0, nil , zilch, nada.

The opponents were probably killed.
I think it's incredible that religious people allow their faith to convince them that events in the bible can be 'fact'. Faith is fair enough. You may have faith that you're going to heaven. It certainly ain't fact. Likewise, Jesus rising from the dead can not be considered fact by any stretch of the imagination.

BrianCalgary

TheBigLebowski wrote:

The opponents were probably killed.
I think it's incredible that religious people allow their faith to convince them that events in the bible can be 'fact'. Faith is fair enough. You may have faith that you're going to heaven. It certainly ain't fact. Likewise, Jesus rising from the dead can not be considered fact by any stretch of the imagination.

The opponents were the ones in charge. Guys like Nero, Domitian, Pilate, etc, etc. There is no way that the Christians could have killed all of their opponents.

As for your other staemnts, do a wee bit of historical research to discover what is and isn't fact. Peoples denial of Christ lead them to believe that Jesus did not rise form the dead even though the evidence shows otherwise.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

The number of eyewitnesses to the event. Paul mentions over 500.

Yes, one guy reported that over 500 people reported that... That's you putting your complete trust in one guy, not five hundred.

BrianCalgary wrote:

the number of people who were willing to die and be tortured as a result of this one event

People allowed themselves to be murdered, and murdered others, because of what they believed is true -- ask the unfortunate people in Salem -- were they all witches because they were hanged and burned?. I would also suggest that christians have probably murdered far more people than have been murdered because they were christians. Ask the Incas, Jews, Muslims etc.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Someone mentioned that the apostles stole the body. That is an impossibility based on the number of guards, both Roman and temple guards, at the tomb. that whole theory has been discredited.

Huh? Did you know yourself how many guards were there and who they were?

BrianCalgary wrote:

With the resurrection there is not a sigle piece of evidence competing with the accounts of the NT.

Because, as we've pointed out many times, early christians DESTROYED virtually everything that they didn't like. The other contemporaneous authors that we know and love so much made it quite clear that they considered the early christians little different from brigands. Have you considered the possibility that they may not have said that Jesus didn't come back to life for the same reason that they didn't say that he didn't have two heads? ie, because it was obvious that he didn't?

But aside from the above, we must have pointed out the above facts ten, twenty, thirty times now. How come you still claim the same things?

I'm interested to know!

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The number of eyewitnesses to the event. Paul mentions over 500.

So who interviewed these eye witnesses? How did they find them? How were their accounts recorded?

Look at what happens when the police make a public call for eye witnesses after a high profile case. Or look at something like the holocaust victims where seemingly a large number of holocaust victims reported during interviews with American and Russian troops, that Hitler himself was present in their camp (a fact that is not lost on the holocaust deniers).

Do we know what these 500 witnesses actually said? Can we read the transcripts?

BrianCalgary wrote:

But to take it one step further, the number of people who were willing to die and be tortured as a result of this one event.

How many suicide bombers have killed themselves in the name of Muhammad in the last 50 years?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Reason tells us that the event happened.

Actually reason is something that is almost completely missing in historical analysis by believers.

Reason, and the study of other religions, tells us that given the option between a fantastical explanation and the explanation that people are either lying or simply mistaken, the later is most likely the truth.

Reason tells us that people believe what they want to believe, and are often prepared to kill or die for this belief.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Someone mentioned that the apostles stole the body. That is an impossibility based on the number of guards, both Roman and temple guards, at the tomb. that whole theory has been discredited.

And a man rising from the dead isn't an impossibility?

BrianCalgary wrote:

With the resurrection there is not a sigle piece of evidence competing with the accounts of the NT.

There is not a single piece of evidence that any of this even happened except for the accounts in the New Testament, accounts written by people who already believed that it happened.

The greatest evidence against the Bible being authentic is, ironically, how Christians like yourself in the modern era act over the question even today, with such tortured logic as saying that since no one wrote it didn't happen is evidence that it did.

People will believe what they want to believe.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Since the reigning authorities had the most to lose from the rise of Christianity, history tells us that if teh resurrection did not happen that there would be ample writings from the opponents of Christianity setting the record straight. However there are a grand total of NONE, 0, nil , zilch, nada.

Not if the resurrection is simply an invention of the early Christians. It is very hard to demonstrate that a fantasy didn't happen, and the question remains why would one want to.

I would imagine that as far as the Romans were concerned Jesus (or who ever Jesus is based upon) was thrown into a pit with all the other bodies from the cruxification to be eaten by dogs.

They might not have heard anything about him again for decades until they realize that cult has some how grown up around him and the idea that he was actually put in an expensive tomb and was resurrected.

Would anyone who knew what actually happened to the body be still around, let alone able to write a book about it? Would anyone have remembered the small time cult leader who was executed that week in an age when people were being executed all the time? And as robin asks why would someone at the time feel the need to record that cult leader #53626 didn't actually rise from the dead while he lay in dog pit 4 just in case 20 years later they realised that there was still a cult following him now claiming he did. They didn't record that all the other messiahs didn't rise from the dead, why would they make a special case for Jesus?

TheBigLebowski

BrianCalgary wrote:

As for your other staemnts, do a wee bit of historical research to discover what is and isn't fact. Peoples denial of Christ lead them to believe that Jesus did not rise form the dead even though the evidence shows otherwise.

But there is also a new idea called 'scientific' evidence. It's used to 'prove' things.

DublinWriter

Soul Winner wrote:

If you are not convinced then I recommend listening to or reading the treatment Dr Gene Scott PhD. Stanford University gives this subject. Ever since I heard it I’ve been totally convinced and have been a Christian ever since. That was 18 years ago.

Is that the guy with the ministery over the Camera Shop in Phibsborough?

I would have thought that the whole resurrection thing would have been pretty central for Christians of all flavours.

interestinguser

People stealing a dead body from a guarded tomb: Impossible
Dead body coming back to life and strolling out: Entirely plausibly

It's hard to believe that any reasonably intelligent person cannot see how ridiculous the reasoning is.

Tim Robbins

Soul Winner wrote:

I do. But I think most Christians don't. When you actually get down to the nub of the basis of our Faith most Christians think Christ being raised from the dead is just a recitation of creed. Before I was converted to Christianity from Catholicism that’s how I perceived this fact to be, just creed.

Who here actually believes that this event took place as an actual ‘fact’ of history just like we know Pompeii was destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius as an actual fact of history?

The Apostle Paul did and he said. “If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain” 1 Cor 15 v 17. So he at least believed this was an actual historical fact and he wrote two thirds of the New Testament so that would make him a good starting point at least.

Before you answer yeah or nay though please think about it for a minute or two. If He actually rose then that makes Him pretty high cotton doesn’t it? Giving validity to the claims He made about himself before His death. Two of them being: “I and the Father are one” and “All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me”.

I know I am biased as I myself am convinced of the truth of this but that’s not why I’m asking the question. I’m curious to know from confessed Christians especially who have thought about it for a few minutes whether or not they truly believe that Jesus The Christ actually rose from the dead as a fact of history.

If you are not convinced then I recommend listening to or reading the treatment Dr Gene Scott PhD. Stanford University gives this subject. Ever since I heard it I’ve been totally convinced and have been a Christian ever since. That was 18 years ago.

But who made the decision that Paul's writing was valid Christian scripture and to be included in the NT? My understanding is that it was the Catholic Church.






If there was no catholic church there would be no Bible.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

If there was no catholic church there would be no Bible.

To a lot of people the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. Everyone else has a some point left the Church and formed a new church.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote:

who made the decision that Paul's writing was valid Christian scripture and to be included in the NT?

As far as I'm aware, the high priest of the Sol Invictus cult, aka the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine, wanted to endorse a fixed list of texts during his rule of the Empire and went with the suggestions of Eusebius of Caesarea who'd produced such a list in around 300AD. This list was changed by Athanasius of Alexandria some years later and the list continued to change from time to time until the around the 1600's when each of the major strands of christianity settled on one list of texts or another, no doubt because they were at last able to print them in large quantities.

For the first few centuries of christianity's existence, there was no fixed list of approved texts that believers were required to believe.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

To a lot of people the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. Everyone else has a some point left the Church and formed a new church.

I know that. What I don't get is why some other Christian Churches think their Christianity is better or truer than the RC church, when there are only using scriptures they got from the Roman Catholic church.

Let's just say the Roman Catholic Church changed around the NT between 300 - 1500 AD and just didn't tell anyone.

How would the reformed Churches know they were looking at legitamate scripture as only tiny scraps of the NT have been found in the dead sea scrolls?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

As far as I'm aware, the high priest of the Sol Invictus cult, aka the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine, wanted to endorse a fixed list of texts during his rule of the Empire and went with the suggestions of Eusebius of Caesarea who'd produced such a list in around 300AD. This list was changed by Athanasius of Alexandria some years later and the list continued to change from time to time until the around the 1600's when each of the major strands of christianity settled on one list of texts or another, no doubt because they were at last able to print them in large quantities.

For the first few centuries of christianity's existence, there was no fixed list of approved texts that believers were required to believe.

Yes, as far as I know there is good historical evidence to suggest when the NT as it is today was finally even agreed upon.
How can people have so much faith in a collection of books that they don't even know when it was decided that was "the" collection or who made this decision?
Perhaps its time to return to the A&A forum.

philologos

interestinguser wrote:

People stealing a dead body from a guarded tomb: Impossible
Dead body coming back to life and strolling out: Entirely plausibly

It's hard to believe that any reasonably intelligent person cannot see how ridiculous the reasoning is.

It's not that we can't understand the reasoning behind the sceptics. It's that we believe that he came back to life.

robindch

Jakkass wrote:

It's that we believe that he came back to life.

Yes, but if there isn't any convincing external evidence, then wouldn't that suggest that there is at least a possibility that Jesus didn't come back from the dead?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Biblical prophesy in Isaiah is rather convincing. Especially Isaiah 53.

A question for Christians:
Just say if copies of the NT Gospels were found which were dated to be written in the first centurt AD and unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, the entire Gospels were found. These Gospels made no reference to the resurrection or any of the miracles. Would you change your opinion then?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

Yes, but if there isn't any convincing external evidence, then wouldn't that suggest that there is at least a possibility that Jesus didn't come back from the dead?

What about the possibility there was evidence he didn't come back to life and Roman Catholic church just burnt it?
Surely the very fact that thousands of Jews who were living in the area at the time didn't belief he was Messiah and kept this belief for another 2 thousand years (and still counting) throws some doubt?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

A question for Christians:
Just say if copies of the NT Gospels were found which were dated to be written in the first centurt AD and unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, the entire Gospels were found. These Gospels made no reference to the resurrection or any of the miracles. Would you change your opinion then?

Good question. I haven't read the Nag Hamadi Scriptures either, so I don't know to be brutally honest with you. I'd say they are reasonably coherent with the Bible.

DublinWriter

BrianCalgary wrote:

With the resurrection there is not a sigle piece of evidence competing with the accounts of the NT.
Since the reigning authorities had the most to lose from the rise of Christianity, history tells us that if teh resurrection did not happen that there would be ample writings from the opponents of Christianity setting the record straight. However there are a grand total of NONE, 0, nil , zilch, nada.

Obviously you really don't know, or understand the history of your faith.

The early Christian sect, the Gnostics, denied the resurrection. They were declared heretics by the Roman Church. Basically a death sentence.

Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the Cathars. They also denied the resurrection. 600,000 men, women and children were butchered after Pope Innocent III's call for a crusade against them. Considering how sparsely populated Northern Europe was at the time (the total population of England was estimated to be about 1 million during the same period), it demonstrates Vatican butchery and ethnic cleansing on a scale Hitler could have only dreamt of.

Stepping back a little, the story of the bible is bascially the history of politics. The early Roman church exercised its power by including only the books of the bible they saw fit. The Gospels of Judas, Mary and Thomas amoung many others were never included in the 'official version'. The Gospel of Thomas denied the resurrection.

Now, roll foward to the 11th century, consider the 'Great Schism' that made Rome become the power base it now is,where before there were 5 equal centers of Christianity (including Rome).

Roll forward another 5 centuries later and we have those whacky, fun-loving Jesuits setting up The Spanish Inquistion with the full authority of the Holy See. To date there hasn't been a better method invented to make people realise God's enternal love than racks, thumbscrews and being burnt at the sake.

Now, do you see where I'm coming from? There wasn't the seperation of Church and State. In those early pre-medaevial and medaevial eras the Church was the State and vice-versa.

But you state that 'Since the reigning authorities had the most to lose from the rise of Christianity', but you fail to understand that Rome was the reigning authority in all European states by Gestalt from the conversion of Roman Emporor Constantine in the fourth century ad to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century.

If you don't believe that interpretation of the bible was dicing with death, then consider the fact that Constantine had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions.

...and I haven't even mentioned Tyndale and also the Qu'ran's denial of the resurrection.

So basically Brian, to summarise: you messed with Rome and the 'offical story' during those years and you died. Horribly. Of course, as you said, there was a 'grand total of NONE, 0, nil , zilch, nada' that opposed the Vatican party line for 1,600 years.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

What about the possibility there was evidence he didn't come back to life and Roman Catholic church just burnt it?
Surely the very fact that thousands of Jews who were living in the area at the time didn't belief he was Messiah and kept this belief for another 2 thousand years (and still counting) throws some doubt?

Biblical prophesy in Isaiah is rather convincing. Especially Isaiah 53.

Juza1973

Tim Robbins wrote:

What about the possibility there was evidence he didn't come back to life and Roman Catholic church just burnt it?

This means this hypotetical evidence doesn't exist anymore and so it can't be used to prove He didn't came back to life. So it's pretty useless to imagine.
I'm Catholic and I agree with Paul that if Jesus didn't raise from the dead I'm a fool and everything about the Christianity has no meaning. So if I'm ever going to disbelieve resurrection I will cease to be a Christian the very moment.

Tim Robbins

DublinWriter wrote:

Obviously you really don't know, or understand the history of your faith.

The early Christian sect, the Gnostics, denied the resurrection. They were declared heretics by the Roman Church. Basically a death sentence.

Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the Cathars. They also denied the resurrection. 600,000 men, women and children were butchered after Pope Innocent III's call for a crusade against them. Considering how sparsely populated Northern Europe was at the time (the total population of England was estimated to be about 1 million during the same period), it demonstrates Vatican butchery and ethnic cleansing on a scale Hitler could have only dreamt of.

Stepping back a little, the story of the bible is bascially the history of politics. The early Roman church exercised its power by including only the books of the bible they saw fit. The Gospels of Judas, Mary and Thomas amoung many others were never included in the 'official version'. The Gospel of Thomas denied the resurrection.

Now, roll foward to the 11th century, consider the 'Great Schism' that made Rome become the power base it now is,where before there were 5 equal centers of Christianity (including Rome).

Roll forward another 5 centuries later and we have those whacky, fun-loving Jesuits setting up The Spanish Inquistion with the full authority of the Holy See. To date there hasn't been a better method invented to make people realise God's enternal love than racks, thumbscrews and being burnt at the sake.

Now, do you see where I'm coming from? There wasn't the seperation of Church and State. In those early pre-medaevial and medaevial eras the Church was the State and vice-versa.

But you state that 'Since the reigning authorities had the most to lose from the rise of Christianity', but you fail to understand that Rome was the reigning authority in all European states by Gestalt from the conversion of Roman Emporor Constantine in the fourth century ad to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century.

If you don't believe that interpretation of the bible was dicing with death, then consider the fact that Constantine had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions.

...and I haven't even mentioned Tyndale and also the Qu'ran's denial of the resurrection.

So basically Brian, to summarise: you messed with Rome and the 'offical story' during those years and you died. Horribly. Of course, as you said, there was a 'grand total of NONE, 0, nil , zilch, nada' that opposed the Vatican party line for 1,600 years.

Is that all from the one book, any chance of the name? I wouldn't mind a read of it.
Kind Rgds

BrianCalgary

DublinWriter wrote:

Obviously you really don't know, or understand the history of your faith..

Actually everything you have written below is not news toi me. However none of it is relevant to the OP's question.

DublinWriter wrote:

The early Christian sect, the Gnostics, denied the resurrection. They were declared heretics by the Roman Church. Basically a death sentence..

You are right. Gnosticism rose some 150 - 200 years after the fact. They based their beliefs on what they considered to be logical spirituality on the deity of Christ and not being able to reconcile Christs dual nature. Similar to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons today.

They were unable to produce a writing from the time of Christ to support their claim that the resurrection did not happen.

DublinWriter wrote:

Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the Cathars. They also denied the resurrection. 600,000 men, women and children were butchered after Pope Innocent III's call for a crusade against them. Considering how sparsely populated Northern Europe was at the time (the total population of England was estimated to be about 1 million during the same period), it demonstrates Vatican butchery and ethnic cleansing on a scale Hitler could have only dreamt of. .

And what do the Cathars have to do with whether or not th eresurrection happened? Yes they denied Christ's deity and the Roman Church persecuted them for it. But it does not provide contrary evidence from the time of Paul to deny the resurrection.

DublinWriter wrote:

Stepping back a little, the story of the bible is bascially the history of politics. The early Roman church exercised its power by including only the books of the bible they saw fit. The Gospels of Judas, Mary and Thomas amoung many others were never included in the 'official version'. The Gospel of Thomas denied the resurrection. .

Now why don't you check your history? The Roman Church did not decide the books of the Bible. They had already been decided by the wide usage they enjoyed in the early church. All the books of the Bible have a direct connection to eyewitnesses to the events. None of the 'other' gospels you mentioned had such a connection, since they were all written between 100 and 150 years after the events. They are invalid historical documents.

Would you believe a book written by someone today, only 60 odd years after the events, denying the holocaust? They exist.

DublinWriter wrote:

Now, roll foward to the 11th century, consider the 'Great Schism' that made Rome become the power base it now is,where before there were 5 equal centers of Christianity (including Rome). .

The shism was based on icons and also has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection happened.

DublinWriter wrote:

Roll forward another 5 centuries later and we have those whacky, fun-loving Jesuits setting up The Spanish Inquistion with the full authority of the Holy See. To date there hasn't been a better method invented to make people realise God's enternal love than racks, thumbscrews and being burnt at the sake..

And what has this got to do with whether or not the resurrection happened?

DublinWriter wrote:

Now, do you see where I'm coming from? There wasn't the seperation of Church and State. In those early pre-medaevial and medaevial eras the Church was the State and vice-versa..

I haven't a clue where you're coming from? There was a great intertwining of church and state through the dark and medieval periods. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection happened.

DublinWriter wrote:

But you state that 'Since the reigning authorities had the most to lose from the rise of Christianity', but you fail to understand that Rome was the reigning authority in all European states by Gestalt from the conversion of Roman Emporor Constantine in the fourth century ad to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century..

But what you don't understand is that from the time of Christ and the rise of Christianity to the time of Constantine, approx 300 years, the rigning authorities persecuted Christianity, see Nero, Diocletian et al., all any of these emporers had to do was produce evidence against the resurrection, and since they had full possesion of the body all they had to do was produce it. But alas they couldn't because: HE is risen.

DublinWriter wrote:

If you don't believe that interpretation of the bible was dicing with death, then consider the fact that Constantine had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions..

Again thsi does not provide any evidence either for or against the resurrection.

DublinWriter wrote:

...and I haven't even mentioned Tyndale and also the Qu'ran's denial of the resurrection..

The Qu'ran was written 500 years after the events of the time. Just as the Book of Mormon and the JW Bible. They are not valid historical documents.

DublinWriter wrote:

So basically Brian, to summarise: you messed with Rome and the 'offical story' during those years and you died. Horribly. Of course, as you said, there was a 'grand total of NONE, 0, nil , zilch, nada' that opposed the Vatican party line for 1,600 years.

You haven't shown how any of this relates to the resurrection. You have only shown the political power of the church in Rome and how that power was abused thorugh certain periods.

BrianCalgary

TheBigLebowski wrote:

But there is also a new idea called 'scientific' evidence. It's used to 'prove' things.

Science can not prove or disprove historical events or personalities, only archaelogical evidence, manuscript evidence (which are writings by those of the time who report on people and events)

You can not scientifically prove nor disprove the existence of a historical figure or event.

DublinWriter

Tim Robbins wrote:

Is that all from the one book, any chance of the name? I wouldn't mind a read of it.

Yes, the Gospel of DublinWriter!

Only kidding, I'm quoting from several sources there. Let me know which particular fact you need a reference for and I'll post it here.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Is that all from the one book, any chance of the name? I wouldn't mind a read of it.
Kind Rgds

Pretty well any history book that talks about the period you are interested in. The History course I just finished covers all that is mentioned. The course was taken through an evangelical Bible college.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I know that. What I don't get is why some other Christian Churches think their Christianity is better or truer than the RC church, when there are only using scriptures they got from the Roman Catholic church.

Let's just say the Roman Catholic Church changed around the NT between 300 - 1500 AD and just didn't tell anyone.

How would the reformed Churches know they were looking at legitamate scripture as only tiny scraps of the NT have been found in the dead sea scrolls?

I know, I was agreeing with you. It is a good point. I would imagine that modern Protestants would argue that some where along the way the RC lost its way, and that they are an attempt to return to a truer version of the Church. How convincing that argument is is of course relative and dependant on believing that the RC did lose its way

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Roman Church did not decide the books of the Bible. They had already been decided by the wide usage they enjoyed in the early church. All the books of the Bible have a direct connection to eyewitnesses to the events. None of the 'other' gospels you mentioned had such a connection, since they were all written between 100 and 150 years after the events. They are invalid historical documents.

I think that is where the difference of opinion is. Noone knows who decided the books of the Bible. But the end product came from the Roman Catholic Church.
It would be interesting to get a RC's opinion on this.

Dub writer could you tell me where in the Gospel of Thomas the resurrection is denied - I have copy, just want to check it.
Rgds

Sapien

Soul Winner wrote:

Well there is no hard evidence as such that you could point to and say there’s the evidence? Do we have evidence that Hitler lived? Yes film archives and eye witness testimony and so on.

Evidence must be proportionate to the claim. One doesn't need much evidence to prove that a man existed. Men exist all the time, it's not unusual. Usually as little as a birth certificate will suffice.

If, however, one wished to prove that Hitler rose from the dead, one would need some pretty amazing evidence. Once again, I'm really not sure what could do the job, and Hitler's death was only sixty something years ago. A resurrection two-thousand years ago would be even more problematic to prove, but given how difficult any resurrection would be to prove, I'm not sure it would make a significant difference.

Soul Winner wrote:

Like wise with Jesus. Ok we don't have film archives but we do have eye witness testimony. Testimony that has been scrutinized for centuries and has never been proved false or misleading. In fact Frank morrison wrote a book entitled "Who moved the stone" that started off as an attempt to disprove the story. He ended up writing a classic which is held up as one of the best defenses of the Faith even convincing himself.

That a man called Jesus existed, perhaps. In fact there were probably many by that name. But that's not what you're asking. You're asking whether there is convincing evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels existed, and rose from the dead. There is not. There could be a hundred consistent accounts of the resurrection, and it wouldn't constitute a reason to believe in it. As it is there are four, second hand, and inconsistent accounts of the life of Christ. They don't even tally on the rather important account of his death and resurrection.

Soul Winner wrote:

There maybe no hard evidence but there is plenty of internal evidence. If you read the record then what immediately leaps out at you is that these men who wrote their story sound like simple minded reporters writing down what they saw and experienced. If they were not then they were liars and frauds and knew that they were liars and frauds.

None of the authors of the gospels witnessed the death or resurrection of Christ. In fact, it is unlikely that any of them were alive at the time (of it's supposed occurance). So, deception on their part is not an issue.

Soul Winner wrote:

So how can you resolve the issue? Well take the story of when Jesus fed the five thousand at Bethsaida...

That's all very interesting, but it isn't quite enough to serve as adequate evidence of a return from the dead.

Soul Winner wrote:

With enough study on the subject any one can be convinced of its truth. But like Dr Gene Scott says "most people assume it can't happened and therefore never even bother to look" I can respect someone who takes the time to look and comes back not convinced than someone who doesn’t accept it but never looked.

You miss the point. Firstly, most people who bother to engage with this topic have looked at the Bible. Secondly, even if they haven't, if there is something in there that might evince the resurrection, it shouldn't be too hard for a believer to point it out - as you have done to some extent. Thirdly, there is nothing that can be contained in a book that could convince a truly objective mind of a resurrection from the dead. No matter how consistent, ingenuous or emphatic, a simple narrative could not provide evidence to span such a claim.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

How convincing that argument is is of course relative and dependant on believing that the RC did lose its way

and originally had its way but just somewhere along the way lost its way

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Dub writer could you tell me where in the Gospel of Thomas the resurrection is denied - I have copy, just want to check it.
Rgds

Is the Gospel of Thomas part of the Nag Hamadi scriptures? Was thinking of getting them a while back.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Is the Gospel of Thomas part of the Nag Hamadi scriptures? Was thinking of getting them a while back.

I got my copy in this very good book called:
"Lost Scriptures" by Bart D. Ehrman.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I know, I was agreeing with you. It is a good point. I would imagine that modern Protestants would argue that some where along the way the RC lost its way, and that they are an attempt to return to a truer version of the Church. How convincing that argument is is of course relative and dependant on believing that the RC did lose its way

I reject the label of 'Protestant', but it is pretty clear, from a historical standpoint, that most of the defining doctrines of Roman Catholicism developed long after the canon of Scripture was defined. Most non-Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians would see themselves as attempting to return to the beliefs and practices of the early church before the Church merged with Rome in the 4th century.

Of course many of our atheist posters have a vested interest in declaring Roman Catholicism to be true Christianity because they draw most of their straw men from the history of the Catholic Church (the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I reject the label of 'Protestant', but it is pretty clear, from a historical standpoint, that most of the defining doctrines of Roman Catholicism developed long after the canon of Scripture was defined. Most non-Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians would see themselves as attempting to return to the beliefs and practices of the early church before the Church merged with Rome in the 4th century.

Of course many of our atheist posters have a vested interest in declaring Roman Catholicism to be true Christianity because they draw most of their straw men from the history of the Catholic Church (the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc).

What about the war on Iraq?
Seriously, my opinion would be there is no true Christianity but there are different versions of Christianity which think they are the true one. RC is just the largest and oldest.

Some questions:
1.
Can you say when canon scripture was defined? i.e. when was the NT finalised?

2.
Who defined it? Who decided the Gospel of Thomas was not Canon but the Gospel of Mathew was? I thought it was the early RC church. Can you shed some light please.

Also when you say:
"Most non-Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians would see themselves as attempting to return to the beliefs and practices of the early church before the Church merged with Rome in the 4th century."

But they reformed Churches do not look refer to any scripture that they did not receive (for want of a better word) from the RC church.
For example, they do not refer to the Gospel of Thomos or Peter they only use Canon that the RC validated.

Your thoughts...

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Some questions:
Can you say when canon scripture was defined? i.e. when was the NT finalised?

It was not a case of a Church Council setting a list & everyone having to agree to it or else. What happened was that early Christians risked execution for possessing copies of Christian Scriptures, therefore it made sense for them to decide which books were worth risking their lives over. This, you will notice, is the exact opposite of how some posters have attempted to rewrite history. It was not a case of a powerful persecuting Church stamping out heretical books, but rather of a persecuted church working out what was worth dying for and so rejecting spurious imitation Gospels.

Very quickly the church, in different cities, realized that the same books were being accepted as Scriptural. The Muratorian Canon listed all the books of the Bible except for 1 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James around A.D. 180 . Irenaeus, as bishop of Lyon around the same date, mentions all of the books except Jude, 2 Peter, James, Philemon, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. The Syriac Version of the Canon, from the third century, leaves out Revelation. In 365, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the complete twenty-seven books of the New Testament which he regarded as the "only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel".

Who defined it? Who decided the Gospel of Thomas was not Canon but the Gospel of Mathew was? I thought it was the early RC church. Can you shed some light please.

In very early Christianity churches looked to Jerusalem, not Rome, for leadership. However, due to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, the growth of Christianity among Gentiles, and Rome being the political centre of power, the Bishop in Rome eventually achieved dominance over most (but not all) other churches. Athanasius of Alexandria was from the Eastern Church (the ancestors of Eastern Orthodoxy) so I guess the Orthodox might claim that Catholics got their Bible from them.

"Most non-Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians would see themselves as attempting to return to the beliefs and practices of the early church before the Church merged with Rome in the 4th century."

But they reformed Churches do not look refer to any scripture that they did not receive (for want of a better word) from the RC church.
For example, they do not refer to the Gospel of Thomos or Peter they only use Canon that the RC validated.

Actually reformed churches rejected a number of books (the Apocrypha) which Catholicism had added to the early church's canon of Scripture. I would contend that to call the early Church (pre-314AD) Roman Catholic is akin to calling the continent of North America 1000 years ago the United States.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Very quickly the church, in different cities, realized that the same books were being accepted as Scriptural.

When you say Church here which Church do you refer to? I understand the term Catholic Church was used in 107 AD is this what you refer to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic#Origins_and_history

The Muratorian Canon listed all the books of the Bible except for 1 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James around A.D. 180 . Irenaeus, as bishop of Lyon around the same date, mentions all of the books except Jude, 2 Peter, James, Philemon, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. The Syriac Version of the Canon, from the third century, leaves out Revelation. In 365, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the complete twenty-seven books of the New Testament which he regarded as the "only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel".

Yes but was it Athanasius who made the decision or was this Athanasius reflecting upon a decision that was already made.
My understanding is that nobody knows for certain who made that decision and that there is only a record of Athanasius listing the 27 books which I think is the earliest record of the list of books.

Actually reformed churches rejected a number of books (the Apocrypha) which Catholicism had added to the early church's canon of Scripture. I would contend that to call the early Church (pre-314AD) Roman Catholic is akin to calling the continent of North America 1000 years ago the United States.

[/QUOTE]
But that is not the claim. The claim is that the reformed Churches got the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. There is no scripture that any reformed Church regards as sacred that was not already regarded as sacred by the RC Church. So if you excuse me using an analogy, a protestant arguing scripute with a Catholic is like the US arguing the English language with the English (I know it's cringe inducing).

Anyway, what I am trying to find out is, did the Roman Catholic Church decide what was canon or is it just a mystery when and who exactly decided what was canon?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Of course many of our atheist posters have a vested interest in declaring Roman Catholicism to be true Christianity because they draw most of their straw men from the history of the Catholic Church (the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc).

Again I think you miss the point.

"True" Christianity is what is debated among Christians. To an atheists you are all equal, you just believe different things. Religion is the issue, not Christianity per say

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Again I think you miss the point.

"True" Christianity is what is debated among Christians. To an atheists you are all equal, you just believe different things. Religion is the issue, not Christianity per say

True Christianity is not debated amongst Christians. There are different denominations because of minor points in styles of worship and practices.

PDN and I would differ on style of worship, yet I would not condemn him of not being a Christian because his doesn't match mine.

I am a Christian because I have accepted Christ as my saviour. So has PDN, Excelsior, jakkass, juza, puck, plus any others that escape my mind. I really don't care where they go to church, just that they do.