The Resurrection

Post Reply New Topic

It does make for a Good Story....and if your raised in that faith , it can give a sense of Peace to those Peeps , perhaps

Never happened.

Well yes, I've often said that I'd love to believe I'll wake up in a really groovy place when I die instead of death leading to a whole bunch of nothing. What a comfort that must be. But I've failed to find any evidence of the former being the case, though Paul very annoyingly says I'm without excuse for not believing it, that the proof is all around me, and that I'm an evil jerk for doggedly closing my eyes to it. So it's all my fault.

Resurrection makes such a good story that Tolkien borrowed it for Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings. And I think there's something much like it in the Chronicles Of Narnia. And wasn't there a version in some religion that pre-dates Christianity? There's the phoenix myth for a start, but that's more of a tale than a religion. And we have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_ave_phoenice

No support for the Wiccans ...Feasts of the Seasons .. plants die off in the fall ... then make a comeback in the Spring , depending on the plant type ?

The notion of Jesus’s death as a ransom sacrifice always bugged me even when I was sort of a believer. An innocent person suffering and dying didn’t seem fair. It pissed me off more than anything. I don’t know how people can watch Passion of the Christ without telling God to go…engage in coitus with himself. Of course, maybe it’s easier if you believe in the Trinity and/or that Jesus and God are the same dude. Then it seems to be more of a masochism thing.

The crucifixion tale sure makes it seem like God is just a very insecure attention seeker who's willing to act completely nuts if means getting the attention he craves.

Here's an apologetic piece that purports to give strong evidence that the resurrection really happened:

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/resu ... ly-happen/

Unfortunately nearly all his evidence is in the form of scriptural quotes. This is his argument that scripture is reliable enough to qualify as strong evidence:

The skeptic often objects to the use of the Bible as a source of information, claiming that the Bible is full of errors or contradictions. However, in these cases the burden of proof for these alleged errors falls on the skeptic. In the end these allegations can be dealt with by a proper interpretation and understanding of the texts in question.

Certainly if I say scripture contains contradictions, the onus is on me to present them for evaluation. But if he says scripture is highly reliable when it makes extraordinary claims, I would think the onus is on him to show strong evidence that it is.

The reliability of the Bible as a historical document has been demonstrated over and over. Historians and archaeologists continually affirm the accuracy of the Bible in matters of history. Further, the number of ancient manuscripts of the Bible far exceeds that of other ancient documents. Thus, if we can gain knowledge about ancient events from sources for which there are relatively few manuscripts, then why should we not use a source for which there is far greater documentation?

I don't see why he thinks an abundance of Biblical manuscripts is evidence that they're to be believed.

As for "historians and archaeologists continually affirming the accuracy of the Bible in matters of history," sure, it often got the names of the people and places right, but it's not logical to say "scripture mentions Jerusalem, and sure enough there was such a place and still is, so when it mentions a miracle, that must be true also." A liar with any brain would make sure that the people and places in his story could usually be confirmed to exist.

The only non-Biblical source he cites is Josephus:

when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold

He correctly says that as a Jew, Josephus would seem unlikely to say that (according to the Criterion Of Embarrassment), though it strikes me that a Jew who believed it wouldn't be a Jew but a Christian.

And the apologist doesn't mention this from Wikipedia:

....most scholars....hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the life and execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to supposed Christian interpolation or alteration. However, the exact nature and extent of the Christian addition remains unclear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

In other words, the reliability of the important quote is highly questionable. But the apologist doesn't bother to tell us that.

Christian apologetics always seem to be full of flawed reasoning and they never seem to give the whole story.

It's always seemed bonkers to me too. Somebody completely innocent gets nailed up for "my" sins, which were actually Adam's doing, and that's the only way to give me this clean sheet that I don't need? But the ancients were steeped in the notion of sacrificing the innocent as a great way of appeasing their deities. I wonder how the innocent felt about it? Abraham's son, for example, or all those goats they used to drive off into the desert to die. And I'm supposed to not view all that as abhorrent and utterly stupid?

The story about Abraham and Isaac makes me feel physically sick to my stomach, and yet, Abraham is a central figure in various faiths. If that story really happened, both he and God would be evil as*holes - Abraham for what he was willing to do and God for inflicting severe psychological abuse on people. It does help to keep in mind that the Bible was written during a different time period. I just could never feel great about this stuff in the present.

I used to wonder what it’d be like to experience the sublime/feelings of awe while looking at a dead, emaciated Jesus on a cross. I still find it puzzling to be honest. I experience great sadness when I consider the human suffering component. Jesus’s death was, unfortunately, nothing special or out of the ordinary in terms of human experience, assuming that a historical Jesus died on a cross, but the last thing that was ever on my mind was the glory of God. Once again, I was raised to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, not God himself. Surely, God being God could think of something better than the idiocy that is the crucifixion. It’s not like doing so is that difficult.

I personally believe in the teachings of ACIM. I feel the holy spirit is in us all and the only choice we can make is whether our mind is controlled by the ego or the holy spirit. (If it makes you feel better you can refer to the holy spirit as Dude or Dudette) It is up to us to "activate" the holy spirit. There is no afterlife nor a supreme being that controls outcomes; you are on your own. Each person can seek guidance from the holy spirit to guide their decision making; that is it. That is why I feel this approach is more spiritual and not religious. One observation : if you break down the word atonement it says at-one-ment. I feel this is the goal of humanity (to recognize we are all inter connected)

It’s easily explained , he was obviously a zombie.

If I were an apologist I'd say that the father and the son had so much faith that neither of them suffered at all, that they just knew God would either stop the show at the last moment or resurrect the son afterwards and erase any residual trauma. But it's interesting that whoever wrote the original story doesn't address the obvious concerns so many of us feel about it. Not that I believe the story or my apologetic of course. I think somebody made the story up to keep the Jews under control, and I made up the apologetic to show how easy it is to spin apologetics that are hard to refute.


I can't concoct an apologetic for the crucifixion. I could say he came back none the worse for his experiences, but scripture insists that he suffered horrifically first, and at one point according to Mark 15:34, even his faith deserted him. However I stretch my imagination, I can't see the crucifixion as a good thing, I can't believe it was necessary, and I'm still amazed that anybody can see it otherwise.

My religion never engaged in apologetics for the Abraham story. They’d always go on and on about how wonderful Abraham’s obedience was and what a fine example he is for us today. Apparently, Abraham and Isaac would be together in the afterlife as if that would make it all better.

Also, they’d claim that people would forget the horrible stuff and injustices they experienced during their current existence based on scriptures like Isaiah 65:17. That’s not what justice is. I never liked the idea of God messing with my head. I felt like he was messing with my head too much already. If he was real, God could, I don’t know, keep or stop s**t from happening to people in the first place since he’s supposedly capable of it.

Anyway, there’s no way that I can see the crucifixion (of anyone) in a positive light. I feel similarly about the rest of the horrific stuff that’s in the Bible. IMO, there’s no way to justify the suffering of innocent people. There’s always a better solution, especially if you’re God and “all things are possible.”

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 17 Feb 2024, 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

TP wrote quote:
especially if you’re God and anything is possible.

hey becareful People are gonna start to think you believe in some kinda supreme being ....

I don’t believe in any deity. I was trying to demonstrate the faulty reasoning of my former faith.