He Is Risen Indeed

Textual analysis of the gospels and an understanding of the first-century world point to the reality of Jesus' resurrection.

elessien

05/17/2008 10:35:52 AM

To reply to Namchuck, I would think that no one died because of their testimony to the fact that St. George really did slay the dragon. Which, of course, is exactly what happened to many of Jesus' followers who were in a position to know if the claims for which they were tortured and killed were based on fact or not. I don't know of many people who would die for a lie that they know to be a lie. Also why do people TYPE LIKE THIS? It's most unnecessary...

WayneB

03/24/2008 02:24:23 PM

I believe in the Bible. The Bible is very exact and without contradiction. I believe that Jesus Christ was crucified on Wednesday and stayed in the grave a full 72 hours. He resurrected on Saturday evening at Sundown. The Rock was not removed from the tomb to let Jesus out, but to let the disciples and followers of Jesus in. I believe that Jesus Christ will save anyone who comes to Him and asks for that salvation.

nascarlady47

03/20/2008 06:54:33 AM

YES I BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE AND ALSO HE AROSE ON THE THIRD DAY. PEOPLE THAT DON'T BELEVE HAVE BLINDERS ON THEIR EYES THEY DON'T WAN'T TO BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THEY HAVE TO GIVE UP YOU CAN'T LIVE FOR SATAN AND GOD. SO THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T LISTEN OR WAN'T TO READ THE BIBLE

namchuck

04/03/2007 08:44:03 PM

Did saint George slay the dragon? did Beowulf slay the Grendel? Did Jason find the golden fleece?

smc93

04/17/2006 08:20:43 AM

'Yes, Jesus Really Rose From Dead' ? It's not symantics to say otherwise: 'God really raised Jesus from the dead' is what the Gospels mean-- they all say slightly different things. God (the Father) raised God (the Son) from the dead... after God (the Son) was obedient unto death (Paul). Alleluia, s

thankU4thisbeautifulday

04/17/2006 05:18:18 AM

The Bible is not against the Jews. In fact, everything in it is about how much God loves them – especially the OT. Then in the NT we still see God’s love for them, however, God does make way for the rest of us (Gentiles) too – thus, the Good News (NT)! The only thing we need to see God’s love in the Bible is faith. Without faith (being open and trusting), reading the Bible is like reading letters from a stranger, instead of a close friend. If you have never been friends with a person, how can you judge them fairly? We love to read about people, gossip and discredit them, rather than actually talk to them personally and get to know them first. Sadly, I think people often do the same with God – forget faith and prayer.

MsWanda72

05/31/2005 02:51:04 PM

Read a book called, The hidden Lineage of Jesus. The book describes the jewish customs of the time, and what the different terminologies meant to them at that time, and it gave me a totally different perspective, regarding Jesus, however, I will say that any man whether he physically rose from the dead or spiritually or even if he never physically died, has to be super human to take such a beating, and continue living. Jesus really is the truth, so whether he rose from the dead in any manner it really doesn't matter, my faith is even stronger now than ever.

HIKER03

05/21/2005 07:16:12 PM

OF COURSE I BELIEVE CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD. NO NEED TO DISSECT EVERYTHING. FAITH IS SO SIMPLE. EITHER YOU BELIEVE OR YOU DON,T. I COULDN,T CARE LESS WHAT ANYONE SAYS. I MADE A PURPOSE DECESION TO BELIEVE IN CHRIST AND HIS TEACHINGS. ONCE YOU MAKE THE DECISION NO WORDS OF ANY MAN WILL CHANGE IT.

Journeyer66

05/20/2005 08:09:13 AM

Interesting article by Witherington, but I strongly disagree with his contention that Christianity "stands or falls" on "certain historical facts." This may be true for him, but can hardly be objectively true. Marcus Borg makes a convincing argument that Christian faith means loving God and all that God loves (i.e. our fellow humans) NOT believing in a certain version of history. The call to emulate Jesus is not, for me at least, affected by the physical reality of his ressurection.

joygarangel

05/19/2005 10:05:20 AM

Joe, You couldn't have worded it better my friend ! Praise God! Plain and simple truth. But some find it so hard to believe. This is why we must have faith. The Bible is true and correct. God-breathed. To those who are searching for answers to your questions... can be found in Gods' Word.

Daldianus

05/19/2005 02:10:47 AM

I also wonder why Jesus needs all these preacher guys to tell us why this happened so and so. Why doesn't he do that himself? I don't trust preachers. They've mostly their own egoistic, hidden agenda.

grateful55

03/30/2005 01:15:46 AM

for all those that don't believe that's okay. It changes nothing God said man is without excuse not to know that He exist because He has showed it unto all men. As far as the Trinity goes it is Revelation Knowledge it must be Revealed to you by the Lord. It cannot be taught, but I will give you an example: I am a wife I am a mother and I am an employee Three different positions but I am still one person functioning in all three. All4jesus777 amen and amen. When it's all over if it's not true (and it is) you have nothing to lose,ahh but if it is (and it is) you've got everything to lose

grateful55

03/30/2005 12:52:07 AM

to seekingken read John 3:16

cpklapper

03/29/2005 03:22:48 AM

How is it that there IS anything? If we do not accept that there is an existence that exists on its on authority, without external cause, then we are positing that something came from nothing. I find this last nonsensical: how can being come from nothingness? For if nothingness were the source of being, exactly how would that be done? Can nothingness create? Can nothingness spontaneously react to form something? I think not. Rather, existence can bring forth other forms of existence. So to search for the kernel of existence, the basis of all being, is to search for the only being, the only existence worthy of worship. The "I AM THAT(BECAUSE) I AM" (YHWH), as revealed to Moses, is the only correct characterization, or name, of God. Since Salvation comes from the one, true God, the YHWH-Salvation, the Yah-Shua, the Christ Jesus, is thus the only name given among men by which we may be saved. Since Jesus was a Jew, salvation indeed comes from the Jews.

SeekingKen

03/28/2005 09:24:34 AM

Well, I do have problems with the resurrection narrative. I also don't see anywhere in scripture that says Jesus was "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" of God. I think that was added in Nicea way after Jesus was no longer around. And I don't buy that Jesus is the "ONLY WAY" to salvation. I cannot imagine a God who will bait and switch on Jews for instance.

ALPHA2

04/11/2004 04:56:17 PM

The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show his servants what must soon take place

ALPHA2

04/11/2004 04:51:58 PM

Gen 1:1 In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth. John 1:1,2 In the beginning was the word and the word was God He was with God. God is never referred to man or woman Jesus calls him Father not mother . Yet Jesus and God are one they are equal. Revealation 1:8 "I am the alpha and the omega says the lord God Who is and who was and who is to come the almighty.

jbova

04/30/2003 07:25:55 AM

Great question "...who created God?!" God tells us that He is eternal, without beginning or end. In the Old Testament, God told the patriarchs that He was the great I AM. Inotherwords He just exists. This is where faith probably has one of its greatest challenges. But it is sort of easy to get around. Consider the so-called finite universe. What is beyond the boundary? Nothing? That does not compute in my mind. There has to be something. In the same way I have been able to rationalize that an eternal God must exist, or there is a hole in our logic. Cause and effect go out the window without some external allpowerful Creator. Hence the digression into physics:-) -Joe

sweetness4life

04/30/2003 02:34:48 AM

"God did it"? Then who created God? Or where did he/she come from?

jbova

04/29/2003 11:35:50 PM

Hi Ariane5, It't never too late for an additional word! I tend to check back periodically to forums that I've contributed to. Anyway, I have only one comment for now. The sciences and their theories will always need to be refined to accomodate new facts. We are constantly discovering information that changes what we already thought we understood completely. Creation on the other hand requires no additional refinement. The exlanation that "God did it" covers all the bases. Robert Jastro once wrote: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers) -Joe

jbova

04/29/2003 11:27:07 PM

There is one other significant difference between Biblical Christianity and other faiths too. Jesus taught his follower to be salt and light, to proclaim salvation to men. BUT he did not tell them to force it down anyones throat or to punish anyone who rejected the message. He (Jesus - God) leaves it up to US to decide for ourselves, and He encourages us to diligently seek the truth. I know this not the message taught by some about Christianity, but those who teach otherwise are just trying to discredit the real message. -Joe

jbova

04/29/2003 11:21:18 PM

This is what separates Biblical Christianity from EVERY other religion. Please understand that the Biblical part is important because not all people who call them selves Christian believe what the Bible teaches. The fact that Jesus's claim to the only way to God is also the reason why Christianity is so hated by the world. They (the world) does not want a savior, the want their way. They don't want to be told that they are sinful and unable to save themselves, they (WE) want to do it ourselves. (cont)

jbova

04/29/2003 11:15:07 PM

Some Christians might agree that a physical resurrection was not necessary. But for them, in that case Christianity is reduced to nothing more that another "religion". Christian's who take the Bible seriously will tell you that not only does history justify the physical resurrection (there is much more evidence that what in that short article) of Jesus Christ, but the TRUE message of salvation hinges upon the actual death and literal physical resurrection. To put it another way, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the Bible is a sham and we have all been duped. (cont)

sweetness4life

04/27/2003 06:38:28 PM

The best anyone can argue, I believe, is that *something* must have happened to convince the disciples of Jesus, that Jesus rose from the dead and was therefore the son of God. Even that much is debatable; but that is all we can reasonably say, so far removed from the events. What was that "something"? Consider the account of Paramahansa Yogananda in his "Autobiography of a Yogi," in which he described seeing his teacher alive, in a glorified state ("glorified body"?), some time after the teacher's death. The teacher told Yogananda about all the different levels of heaven and the afterlife. Might not the "resurrection" of Jesus have been something like this? If so, perhaps even an extraordinary event as the resurrection of Jesus, might not have been as unique an event as we've been led to believe...

sweetness4life

04/27/2003 06:31:16 PM

Whew! Quantum physics and Stephen Hawking's theories in a theological discussion! How do I stop my head from spinning? Just kidding. Seriously, about the article, Witherington makes some interesting points; but I'm hung up on two things. He takes the Biblical accounts of resurrection at face value, in that he assumes the resurrection was *bodily*--that is, it involved the resurrected corpse of Jesus. I don't believe that particular interpretation of the resurrection is fundamental to the Christian faith, as he suggests. Also, I take issue with Witherington saying that the resurrection of Jesus is a "fact." That simply cannot be established, 2000 years later, with any factual analysis that can be taken seriously. Just the fact that the Bible claims it happened, does not make it so. (cont'd)

ariane5

04/26/2003 05:04:53 AM

maybe it's a little late but I have still some remarks. It's indeed true that Hawking's theory still has a weak singularity but only if you transform it to normal time coordinates (instead of the imaginary time coordinates where the singularity vanishes). He also understands that his theory must still be incomplete because of our limited understanding of quantum-gravity which plays an essential role at the moment of big bang. The cause and effect principle is a remnant of our classical theories, it doesn't hold in our quantum theories where particles are TCP-invariant. Julian Barbour explains reasonable well how we can visualize a timeless universe by the use of "time capsules" but I suggest that you read the book if you want to find out more.

jbova

04/24/2003 03:13:51 PM

I have read some of Hawking's work and he presents some interesting theory. Now my understanding of quantum theory IS somewhat limited so I won’t go there directly. However, to the best of my recollection, he has admitted that in reality singularities will likely exist eventhough he proposes none. While mathematics permits them, our observable physical reality does not. Yes we could debate this until the cows come home, but I don’t have any cows. Anyway, I believe (and there are many others, both secular and religious scientists) that his assertions don’t reflect reality and it takes a major leap of faith to accept them with out rigorous testing, something we can’t do with current technology. Also, a universe without time would also violate the cause and effect principle that modern physics has accepted. Besides what would initiate time (sorry, I couldn't resist) BTW, I have enjoyed this discussion. It's nice not having to listen to some who speak with their glands. -Joe

ariane5

04/24/2003 02:24:30 PM

The universe that he created has no boundary and doesn’t need boundary conditions, he calls it the “noboundary proposal” and unless other theories it can be proven or disproved by simple measurements of the background radiation. At this moment, his theory still holds. In fact, “the no boundary proposal” tells us that time is more a direction in space, it is felt as a change from one state to the other. Objects don’t flow through time but time is created by a change between states without a boundary. Many other quantum phycisist even suppose that there is no “temporal movement” from one state to the other, time doesn’t exist at all and “a direction in space” is not even necessary. All states of the universe exist at the same moment and exist forever. Julian Barbour has written a book (“The End of Time”) where he tries to explain a universe without time.

ariane5

04/24/2003 02:24:01 PM

Jbova, I thought that you were heading in that direction, indeed. I have discussed this so called problem of causality many times with others on this and other boards. Physics is simple about the question “What existed before the big bang?”. It says that this question has no meaning, there is no “before” because time didn’t exist before the big bang. The big bang is the instantation of our space-time universe. Of course, this incites more question then answers. What are the initial conditions that are needed at the boundary of space-time? What if those boundary conditions are somehow arbitrary? Why are the values what they are? Is there “room” for something else, something that could have influenced those boundary conditions? A first questions that you have to ask is “do we need boundary conditions?” Hawkings developed a theory where time is replaced by imaginary time that has no boundary. (cont.)

jbova

04/23/2003 08:41:16 PM

Oh please pardon my terrible grammar. I difficulty thinking with low roar of children and tv in the background. -Joe

jbova

04/23/2003 08:39:21 PM

This would be no different that suggesting that God personally establish those parameters, because they had to set and this would also require a leap of faith. So do you think suggesting that an entity (call it what you will) could exist out side of this boundary and establish those conditions is either an illogical or unreasonable postulate? You probably new I was heading in this direction:) -Joe

jbova

04/23/2003 08:37:25 PM

Arian5, you are close regarding the Kalaam Cosmological argument, but not quite. In short summary, it simply requires that everything have a cause of some type. The proponents would argue that the thermodynamic arrow of time must have a beginning, a cause. When you explain that this would be related to initial boundary conditions, they would ask how those conditions were established, and suggest that something had to cause a particular state (and they new nothing of modern physics or chaos theories). Regardless of the response, they would be quick to point out that we cannot ascertain those precise conditions that make Hawking's (etal) ideas work so there is a leap of faith involved when selecting those conditions. (cont)

ariane5

04/23/2003 01:07:42 PM

"Are you familiar with the Kalaam Cosmological Arguement for the existance of God?" I am not really familiar with that argument but I think that it has to do with god as "the prime mover". I think that it was some sort of an answer to the problem of causality that seems to happen in a world where time is an unbounded property of existence. They thought that a god needs to exist because he was the only one that had no cause. Of course, those people didn't understand the meaning of concepts like "thermodynamic arrow of time".

jbova

04/22/2003 07:56:37 PM

Ok, next question (of course you already knew one was comming): Are you familiar with the Kalaam Cosmological Arguement for the existance of God? If your not, and decide to research it, please ignore the bull____ & criticisms until you digest the actual thesis and form your own opinion. I sometimes have trouble finding unbiased information and instead get a literary analysis instead. -Joe

jbova

04/22/2003 07:49:38 PM

ariane5: "sometimes the boundary between spirituality and reality is crossed in a way that is not in accordance with science or better with our “rational look on reality” I agree with that statement, 100%. And I would go on to say that if my conception of true spirituallity is correct, this is necessary because I believe that it (or at least part) exist out side of the physical universe. Do the meet at the quantum level? I don't know. And yes, quantum theory has inspired a number of philosophical(sp?) books, some interesting, some hogwash. BTW: I began investigating some of the science forums. I was somewhat disappointed with the lack of discipline of many who presented their 'opinion' rather sardonically. I would expect that in these forums, but not there. (Cont)

ariane5

04/22/2003 05:01:17 PM

"When people discuss purely spiritual matters, do try to analyze their logic (or lack thereof?) Also do you believe that there is an afterlife?" Purely spiritual matters are free to anyone and I understand that those could have a healing and beneficial effect. The only problem that I encounter is the fact that sometimes the boundary between spirituality and reality is crossed in a way that is not in accordance with science or better with our “rational look on reality”. An example: creationists believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old; this is totally inconsistent with our scientific discoveries and theories. Do I believe in an afterlife? It can be a surprise for you but I certainly don’t exclude the possibility of some sort of afterlife and this purely on scientific grounds. Our current quantum theory, a weird but unbelievable powerful and most profound theory of reality, can have many surprises. I would say: let’s hope that there is an afterlife but be sceptical.

all4jesus777

04/22/2003 10:56:21 AM

fromoz You seem to be stuck on something that never happened. To begin with, if you believe Jesus to be God in the flesh you know why it happened and if you do not believe Jesus to be anything more than a man, you know who killed Him. Either way he was not killed by God. He was executed by the Roman government. Now had He stayed dead then it would have been over, but if you go looking for Him in His grave, what you will find is an empty tomb, unlike the graves of Buddah and Mohammad. God Bless!

jbova

04/22/2003 10:33:32 AM

fromoz: So god made things right by murdering his son? No, we murdered his son, you and I. If you read many of these post, you will find that people everywhere are still trying to kill him. They hate him. Why? Perhaps because he has exposed us for what we really are, conceited, vain, pompus fools who are going to die because we have absolutely no control over our own destiny. His resurrection is what has saved us. His death was symbolic (but physically real) in that it destroyed sin commited in the flesh (and more). His resurrection demonstrates that he is ultimately in control, of everything. -Joe

fromoz

04/22/2003 12:47:02 AM

jbova So god made things right by murdering his son? all4jesus777 Imagine how much strength it took for those enlightened people during the Inquisition to die for their belief that the world revolved around the sun. Surely if Christians had their way and if those brave individuals weren't prepared to die - people would still be believing that the world was flat?

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 09:21:41 PM

I hate to get off here right now, but I have prayer group tonight. I will get back on later. God Bless, Nancy

jbova

04/21/2003 09:11:16 PM

ariane5: "If that argument is flawed then I think I have the right to interfere." Response: When people discuss purely spiritual matters, do try to analyze their logic (or lack thereof?) Also do you believe that there is an afterlife? BTW, I truely appreciate your last response, it's one of the few direct and honest statements of position I have yet to see on these boards. -Joe

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 09:06:09 PM

Imagine how much strength it took for our Savior to allow Himself to go through all of that pain? Even though He knew He would rise again, He also knew He had to spend three days in the grave first. Absence from God in itself is a horrible thing, but the sins He bore and the pain inflicted on Him were beyond belief. And by the way, If He did not rise again, where is He?

jbova

04/21/2003 09:03:35 PM

fromoz:"How could god create a world full of evil without being evil himself?" God did not create a world full of evil. He create beings with FREE will to permit man (US) and the spirit world to do what ever they please. Some from the spirit world (Satan and his lackies) rebelled against God. They also caused man to rebel against God. That is the source of evil. Yes it sucks, it sucks swampwater. But God has a plan to make thing right. I believe that we will see the exciting conclusion very soon. But we won't know its comming, were ALL too proud. Even those who know the truth may miss the signs.

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 08:52:05 PM

You see he took on all of our sins. He suffered and died and rose again so that through Him we could have eternal life. One question a lot of people ask is this. If Jesus was God then why did He pray to Himself? I guess the way I would answer that is; the same reason I pray to God. When I am down on my knees seeking God's face, through the Holy Spirit, I become one with God. It is a matter of taking all thoughts into captivity and gaining strength through God. I have the Holy Spirit in me all the time, but if I do not sit down and pray and seek God's face, I will lose my strength.

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 08:46:02 PM

To begin with Jesus and God are the same also the Holy Spirit. They form the trinity, I know this is hard to understand and even harder to explain, but I will say this, when God reveals it to you, it is personal and you can't miss it. It is real! God created this world as something to be enjoyed. Satan messed that up for all of us.God gave us a choice on who we want to follow, but there were a few things necessary to follow God. Try as we may, none of us (humans) have ever been able to do anything for any length of time. God loved us too much to give up on us though. He loved us so much that He personally came down to earth in the form of a man to die for us. He gave Himself as an ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 08:17:08 PM

fromoz You realy don't have a clue what you are talking about. God is loving a did not create a world full of evil. He created a beautiful world. The evil came from satan. He absolutely did NOT murder His son. Have you ever read the Bible?andif you did, did you pray before you read it or did you just sit down and read it like a common book on the shelf?

fromoz

04/21/2003 08:04:40 PM

all4jesus777 How could god create a world full of evil without being evil himself? Surely at Easter the focus on a god that murders his own son highlights the gross evil of that god?

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 08:04:17 PM

What have you been smoking?

fromoz

04/21/2003 07:58:40 PM

all4jesus777 Surely most Christians don't like to look at the life of Jesus or his teachings because the things that Jesus taught are in opposition to the things that will happen when he comes again? Surely the myth of Jesus rising from the dead was a political necessity to keep alive opposition to Rome and to keep alive the hope that Jesus would return to destroy the enemies of god - as was predicted in the Old Testament?

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 07:56:52 PM

fromoz How dare you say that the Christian God is evil? I would really like for you to explain what you mean? I am curious how anyone can justify that statement. Thanks. God Bless, Nancy

all4jesus777

04/21/2003 07:43:12 PM

KirbyDLewis Your description sounds all good and fine, just like a lot of other people's. There is however a huge problem. Just because a person believes something, it does not make it so. Just because it feels good does not make it the right thing to do. New age stuff is a farce and WILL NOT get you anywhere after this life is over. There is one name by which we might be saved and that is the name of Jesus Christ! And it happens to make all the difference in the world that He died and rose again. My opinion or yours neither one make any difference. I am not trying to sound arrogant just stating the truth. And it is truth. the problem most people have is they look at reliogion and get lost. We all need to go back to the basics and look at Jesus Christ. Without Him we are all doomed! God Bless!

fromoz

04/21/2003 07:41:10 PM

KirbyDLewis I would like to honour god in all traditions - but how do you honour god in all traditions when some of those gods have an evil side to their natures - such a god surely is the Christian's god? Does an evil, vengeful and violent god have a problem amongst some of the other gods - or do some people have a problem in expecting that their god should always be a god of love?

KirbyDLewis

04/21/2003 12:04:55 PM

As one who honors God in all traditions, not just one, I say this: If that which has died in me -- love, e.g. -- be not transformed and given new life, then my trusting God is in vain. It does not matter, it does me no good, what happened or didn't happen to someone else's physical body. The only thing that matters to me is whether there is something I can call "resurrection" in my own life. My spirit must be "resurrected" so that I can find life worthwhile and God real.

rbethell

04/21/2003 11:13:54 AM

Paul says that if we doubt the ressurection, our faith is in vain. And I think he is right. (One of the few allusions Paul makes to historical events is his attestation that various disciples saw the ressurected Jesus.) Why bother believing if you don't associate something special with the event? Why be a Christian if you believe that the real God would be unwilling to have anything miraculous associated with such a good servant of his as Jesus was? The apostle John says "God is Love." The Christian way of conceiving of that love is in believing that God would be willing to do what he did not ask of Abraham - the sacrifice of his son. (He stopped Abraham.) He gave would nobody else could - and He did it in Love.

johnyony

04/21/2003 10:09:09 AM

I don't know if Jesus was resurected or not.Ido know my father was a christian all his life and I beleive I was shown a sign when he passed on to convince me I had done the the right thing when I disconnected his ventilater

zoe7

04/21/2003 09:31:40 AM

Faith...1st men must believe that God is--many do not-but My LORD is coming again and then SHOWDOWN ETERNITY will take place...

ariane5

04/21/2003 03:45:08 AM

I know that I don't need to seek for answers here on science questions. I discuss them on other boards. If there is one thing that I like, probably just as most of us here on the site, then it is discussion and interaction with people with other opinions. But the most important reason why I also take part in discussions on beliefnet is my continuing interest in the motives of other peoples beliefs, especially when a "scientific" argument seems to play a role. If that argument is flawed then I think I have the right to interfere. I take down everything that seems to be a result of a misunderstanding or flawed reasoning.

jbova

04/20/2003 09:52:29 PM

ariane5, I would like to address some of your points about creation versus evolution. I will look for the science form at a later time. I do however have a question for you now. In your response to all4jesus777, you claim: "I understand that a god is an unnecessary and even irrational postulate and that’s also the conclusion of many other scientists (and other people)." I agree that this is the conclusion of many. But if you too feel this way, what draws you to Beliefnet? Just curiosity, or are you seeking answers to questions that don't pan out scientifically (or logically)? -Joe

ariane5

04/20/2003 06:13:30 PM

all4jesus777 For me, god is an unneeded and irrational answer to a clear defined question: "Why do we exist?" It is an unnecessary proposition. For me, the question “does a god exist?” means nothing more than the question “does a unicorn exist?” It’s not that I am a stubborn atheist, I am raised in a very conservative catholic family but I got the strength to follow a life, not ruled by authority but ruled by ratio and realism. I understand that a god is an unnecessary and even irrational postulate and that’s also the conclusion of many other scientists (and other people). I don’t see any sadness in the words I have written and I don’t need any blessing of the god you seem to worship.

ariane5

04/20/2003 05:57:06 PM

jbova it's not that incredible that time has always moved forward. We, as structures who are bounded by the second law of thermodynamics, have no other choice. Live is probably one of the most complex structures of nature but, as I said, it doesn't require a designer. Evolution theory is the only scientific theory of biological evolution of life, creation theory is not a scientific theory but an incorrect belief. The big bang has happened, there are no doubts about that. If you have still question about scientific issues then you can better use the science-forum of beliefnet. I am a physicist and engineer but there are probably also other people there who can answer your questions.

all4jesus777

04/20/2003 12:18:57 AM

Maltheist , Tyler and Ariane5 I said a prayer for you tonight, I know you did not ask, But when I saw the need you see, I knew it was my task, I asked the Lord to bless you, I asked for your safe keeping, I asked Him to watch over you, tonight while you are sleeping. I do not know Your name, my friend, or anything about you, But the sadness in the words you write, let me know that God needs you. So may God Bless and keep you, In my prayers you will remain. I trust the Lord to comfort you and take away your pain. God Bless and Happy Easter, Nancy

all4jesus777

04/20/2003 12:05:22 AM

Tyler, I do not know how to begin to answer all of your questions, but I can tell you this much. Jesus is God and He died and rose again so that we might have eternal life. When you truely seek, then God will reveal Himself to you. He does not waste His time on those who do not ernestly seek Him. (Those are my words not His) God is good and He is real. I do not know everything there is to know, but I do know that the Mormons very own President Gordon B.Hinkley has admitted that the Jesus they worship, is not the Jesus worshipped by the traditional Chistian. Maybe they got theirs at the 5 and dime. Buddah and Mohaaed and Krishna are all burried and gone. JESUS LIVES, HIS TOMB WAS AND STILL IS EMPTY. And there were eye witnesses I do not know, but I do know this. My Jesus is real. And He is God!!! God Bless.

jbova

04/19/2003 06:45:05 PM

Tyler: But then again, even if this article isn't wrong, what about the Accention of Muhammed, Krishna, and the Devine Death under the Bo tree (of Buddha), the finding of the 3 tablets of Moroni by J.Smith, ect. I mean, Muhammed (pbah) accended into heaven by the angel Gabriel, in front of witnesses... There is NO historical evidence to back any of these assertions. I believe that God wants us to be able to independantly validate what he has said in his Book, hence the historical & prophetic accuracy. Even the Bible give credence to other gods (small g) and commands US not to follow them. There is a new book called "The Trouble with Jesus." It accurately and effective describes why Jesus Christ and his exclusive claim of deity is no longer acceptable in today's society.

jbova

04/19/2003 06:36:46 PM

ariane5: Third, the complexity of life is not a proof for a designer, that is exactly what most of our fundamental theories of nature try to explain (fundamental physics, galactic physics, biology, evolution, ...). They show that starting with the few laws that are fundamental to our universe, complex lifeforms are only a logic consequence on those places where they have the resources to come in existence. There is a LOT of disagreement in the scientific community here. There are many on both sides. But the evolutionary side is having to retreat, expecially in the area of biology. Let me know if you want some references. Cosmologically, the big bang theory only takes us back to a point JUST before the event, we cannot get past that event horizon without a "prime mover" ( God :). BTW, the big bang theory is currently being revised again but that's way beyond this discussion.

jbova

04/19/2003 06:28:15 PM

ariane5 regarding 2ed thermo law: Totally untrue. First of all, I don't see any reason why the second law of thermodynamics should be a proof for a designer. Second, the second law of thermodynamics is a local law in the sense that it is coupled to the thermodynamic arrow of time. Ok, show me one example where a system other than a life process becomes more organized in any way without a deliberate input from an intelligent source? The second law defines entropy, and it applies everywhere. We have recorded star death, but only theorized star birth, none has ever been observed and time has ALWAYS moved forward. (cont.)

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:21:29 PM

But then again, even if this article isn't wrong, what about the Accention of Muhammed, Krishna, and the Devine Death under the Bo tree (of Buddha), the finding of the 3 tablets of Moroni by J.Smith, ect. I mean, Muhammed (pbah) accended into heaven by the angel Gabriel, in front of witnesses (I think Hussain and Alia, could a Muslim in thi forum back me up?) and so on.

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:17:15 PM

And flaws in the article- Actually, Autohypnotic trances tend to happen to hopeless people. And in the bible it says that not even most of the Apostles reconized him. It could have been a look alike. I mean, Yeshua looked like a normal guy (he need to be Identified, so he was not the 6 foot tall blue eyed Aryan Jesus), so a person that Paul picked out could have looked like him, and Paul then used him to manipulate the other disciples (Paul is the one that benifited from his death the most, forming his own church, which he propably L.Ron Hubberd'd to get rich.

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:12:04 PM

Krishna "came onto earth to cleanse the sins of the human beings." 2 "Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king." 3 Yeshua was born while his foster-father, Joseph, was in the city to be enumerated in a census so that "all the world could be taxed." Jesus is recorded as saying: "if you had faith as a mustard seed you would say to the mountain uproot yourself and be cast into the ocean" Krishna is reported as having uprooted a small mountain.

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:11:52 PM

Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven. The man who compiled this comparison-sheet was a man called Graves, who stated that both Krishna and Yeshua were born on December 25. He was in error on this: Krishna is traditionally believed to have been born during August. The festival Janmashtami is held in honor of this birth. The birth day of Jesus is unknown, but is believed by many to have also been about August. December 25th was chosen for Christmas because of a pre-existent Pagan Roman holiday, Saturnalia. December 25th was also recognized in ancient times as the birth day of various other god-men such as Attis and Mithra. In addition, there are other points of similarity between Krishna and Yeshua: "The object of Krishna's birth was to bring about a victory of good over evil." 2

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:11:36 PM

Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases." Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both encountered a Gentile (well, the Indians didn't have a "gentile word, but oh well.)woman at a well. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:10:59 PM

Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. An angel issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head." Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth. Both were "Without sin." Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:10:09 PM

What about the Cult of Mithrsis, Zoroastrianism, and Dyonisus? And Krishna (the only one of these people still worshipped) was the 9th reincarnation of Vishnu, and was resurected. See the simalarities- Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity (Krishna -Vishnu) Their mothers were holy virgins, who had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia. His adoptive human father was a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father.

Tyler7

04/19/2003 04:02:03 PM

But can you prove it?

all4jesus777

04/19/2003 12:47:14 PM

A very good article. I am not a Bible scholar and will not pretend to be, but there are some of you who do not KNOW as much as you think you do either. Jesus Christ IS the son of God, he came down here and lived as a man and suffered and died on a cross and rose again.He did this for me, so if you are thinking that you are not so bad, that you did not need to have Him suffer for your sins, that is ok, it was for me. I am that bad!None of us are good in and of ourselves, we are only decieved to think that could be true. I know this is true because The Holy Ghost has revealed it to me, I do not need to have anything more than that. I am a born again Jesus Freak! and I love it! God Bless!!!

ariane5

04/19/2003 10:02:47 AM

(part 2) Third, the complexity of life is not a proof for a designer, that is exactly what most of our fundamental theories of nature try to explain (fundamental physics, galactic physics, biology, evolution, ...). They show that starting with the few laws that are fundamental to our universe, complex lifeforms are only a logic consequence on those places where they have the resources to come in existence. There is not one reason to think that the statistical chances for life are too small if you only try to understand the processes and evolution that lead to the formation of life.

ariane5

04/19/2003 10:02:31 AM

(part 1) "The form of the physical universe, and the complexity of biological life, requires BOTH a designer and physically separate prime mover (God) or else the second law of thermodynamics, a most fundamental law of physics is violated." Totally untrue. First of all, I don't see any reason why the second law of thermodynamics should be a proof for a designer. Second, the second law of thermodynamics is a local law in the sense that it is coupled to the thermodynamic arrow of time. We, as a part of the universe, are bounded to that arrow of time because our complete physics (including our memory) require an increase of entropy. There is not a clear reason to think that it is applicable to the universe as a whole because it depends on the property of "time" itself. On the most fundamental level "time" could be inexistent. (cont.)

jbova

04/19/2003 09:47:02 AM

So in conclusion, either you choose to accept the bodily resurrection and all the factual evidence or deny it and believe someone elses retoric. It's a choice. I have always sought the truth and truth cannot be relative, there can be ONLY one truth. I see the resurrection as truth, and the Bible as a accurate. For those who don't, show me the proof. God Bless -Joe

jbova

04/19/2003 09:39:18 AM

There is one final element of the Bibles accuracy to be considered. As a historical book, it as proven to be correct in every case where archeological evidence has been uncovered. Yes there are a few places in the Bible where we do not have incontrovertable proof, but it these cases, we have NO real proof against the claim, just a lact of corroboration. Just one example, creation. The form of the physical universe, and the complexity of biological life, requires BOTH a designer and physically separate prime mover (God) or else the second law of thermodynamics, a most fundamental law of physics is violated. -Joe

jbova

04/19/2003 09:32:42 AM

(please pardon my grammar) So the essential arguement here is the accuracy of the Biblical accounts. There are two key features of the death and resurrection that stand out. One they pierced his side and blood and water ran out. This in it self consitiutes proof of death. Research it before you critize it. Two, the linen cloth was not unwrapped, the head covering was placed somewhere else. Add to the fact that production of the dead body would have ended the Jewish leaders nightmare, vindicated the Roman authority, thus putting to rest any suggestion of a resurrection, well it never happened. (cont)

jbova

04/19/2003 09:25:01 AM

To suggest that Christianity can exist without a bodily resurrection is plausable. But then it would be no different than any other "Religion", a placebo for the masses. But, if the resurrection is real as the Bible claims, then Jesus Christ's claim to be God and the Only way are indisputible. This is where the rubber meets the road. Rejection of the Biblical record for any reason other than the possibility that it contents are flawed and erronious are the result of man pride. Pride is at the top of the list of sins, the very top. (cont...)

cinorjer

04/19/2003 05:42:47 AM

How can a "Biblical scholar" possibly know so little about the world of the first century? Just in his first few paragraphs, he manages to get things backwards. It was the pagens who were familiar with resurrection stories, in the form of the Mithriasm and Isis cults that were already established. It's the pagens who were familiar with the "My father is a God" framework. It's the Jewish people who would have skoffed at the whole idea! He's also wrong about the abundance of eyewitnesses who might be around to refute the new doctrine. The Gospel writings became authoritative after the Christians in Jerusalem were wiped out when their city was finally destroyed.

William4Christ

04/18/2003 11:08:40 PM

Died in the first century on the cross, this is impossible to dispute as Pilate ensured death by having the soldiers pierce His heart with a spear, then, ensured death, the customary practice of breaking His legs was therefore unnecessary). The bodies were also to be taken down before the Sabbath, as He was cursed if He hung on a tree, as the Gospel of John records (19:31). had He not risen, rather, appeared badly wounded it would have destroyed the faith (added to their sorrow by witnessing Him in bad shape, weak and stumbling, yet alive, versus the powerful impression His life had left) rather than strengthened it. Keep in mind, His followers were emboldened by seeing Him alive (50 days after His ascension they boldly preached in Jerusalem to the same crowd, in the same city, who screamed their plea for His blood just a 3 months earlier), vs. they were afraid before when thought Him dead...impossible if He were not one who had just conquered the grave

William4Christ

04/18/2003 10:46:57 PM

The resurrection is first historical fact as recorded in the Gospels, which became Christians' (later even to today) religious faith. the event happened, and then it was told via the Gospel writers Matthew-John. When the disciples saw Him alive with their own eyes, they went into the world to preach the good news that He was risen indeed. This would easily have been refuted had it not been true, or eventually burned out, if He were still dead (Acts 5:34-39) and the followers would have dispersed. The faith would have had nothing whatsoever to preach had it not happened literally and had the apostles not seen Him alive when the tombstone had been rolled away (after seeing Him killed on the cross, sorry, it has more evidence for it than any death in the history of the ancient world). For further information read the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel.

raindog

04/18/2003 08:47:17 PM

This entire article can be summed up in once sentence. "I can't see any reason why someone would lie about this, so it must be true."

bardmountain

04/01/2002 03:27:21 PM

Perhaps part of the argument resides in whether you feel that the historical aspects of the Bible (~90%) can be separated from the religious aspects of the Bible (~10%). From a logical standpoint, it would seem they could be separated. Are not the teachings of Jesus indepedent of the historical happenings of the time? We must accept this as the case if we are to use Jesus's teachings today within our temporal context. If the teaching is not to lie, why would whether Jesus was resurrected or not change that fundimental teaching? Suppose Jesus wasn't resurrected - how would that change this basic wisdom? The history and the religion don't seem to be functionally related and can exist independently of one another. It seems to me both perspectives from a religious standpoint would be identical - only one's perspective on the history would be different; the wisdom and teachings would remain constant over both perspectives.

tmaster1

04/01/2002 12:11:43 PM

Doriliz, there is abundant evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross, and survived that ordeal. And I believe that more evidence [in fact, I know it] will be coming out as the years unfold. But no matter how strong the evidence [and, in my opinion, it is strong enough now], some will not accept it.

Doriliz

04/01/2002 11:57:52 AM

It doesn't matter if one believes or not; it doesn't change the truth of what really happened. We'll never really know ... or will we? It is worth reading The Word's Worth by Ben Witherington III posted to the left of this page. Every story has two sides. Thanks and God bless.

tmaster1

04/01/2002 11:31:05 AM

[CONTINUED FROM POST BELOW] The Bhavishya Mahapurana The Rauzat-us-Safa Ikmal-ud-Din The Book of Balauhar and Budasaf The Tarikh-i-Kashmir The Tarikh-i-Kashmir-i-Kabir The History of Religions and Doctrines The Wajees-ut-Tawarikh The Bagh-i-Sulaiman The Acta Thomae [a Christian document, banned by the Church (obviously)] The Ain-ul-Hayat The Negaris-i-Tan-i-Kashmir The inscriptions on the Takhat Sulaiman monument The actual tomb of Jesus in Kashmir (see pictures at: http://tombofjesus.com/Morepics.htm ) You may read about this at www.tombofjesus.com, or you may obtain the book, Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion?

tmaster1

04/01/2002 11:30:11 AM

Flavius Josephus, an ancient historian, witnessed one of his friends SURVIVE a crucifixion (see quote of his in 4th paragraph at following page: http://tombofjesus.com/Welcomeall.htm ) So if Jesus was seen after the crucifixion, it's simply because he **survived it physically,** which did happen if a person was taken down from the cross in time [again: Josephus was an eye witness to such an occurrence]. Further corroboration that Jesus did not die on the cross can be found in many Asian documents, such as: [CONTINED IN POST ABOVE]

LuckyTN

04/01/2002 07:15:30 AM

Without the resurrection, we Christians would not have a faith. Jesus said that he would rise again. He did what he said he would do. Folks keep trying to disprove the Bible, but time and time again, the scriptures are proven to be true. I believe! All power and glory to the risen Christ.

slimtim336

03/31/2002 11:23:19 PM

What the bard said a few posts down is true: enlightened people have questioned the validity of the bible for hundreds of years. Thomas Jefferson called himself a Christian, wrote admiringly of Jesus, but said in no uncertain terms that the resurrection and other miracles attributed to Jesus were hogwash. Why do we cling to such foolishness? We all know that George Washington did not chop down any cherry tree, and we and acknowledge that the Trojan War only partly happened as is depicted in epic stories. Why this hang-up with the end of Jesus' life and insistence that the bible is too true to question?

etoro

03/31/2002 10:28:19 PM

The message in the foregoing therefore suggests that the method of resurrection for Jesus and the rest of his followers are too inconsistent to be derived from the same supernatural power. Why would God have raised Jesus'entire physical being and not provide the same treatment for the rest of his believers?

etoro

03/31/2002 10:20:54 PM

There is a seri0us flaw and a deep inconsistency in the concept that Jesus rose from his tomb on the third day of his death as a physical person; this suggested by the account that his body was no longer present. Notwithstanding the supernatural nature of the event, what does this say about the way the rest of Christiandom is to be resurrected after death, given the fact that we know the bodies of all decease persons, chirstians included, remain in their tombs until "ashes and dust". In this case the reasoning is that only "the spirit" is arisen while the body clearly remains in the ground..

MichaelJoeMiller

03/31/2002 09:14:07 PM

The fact is, though, that Christ's purpose on Earth was not just to teach us. Along with being a teacher, He was a sacrifice: the Lamb of God. It is not simply his teachings that provide salvation; it is his real death and resurrection which paid for our sins in blood.

bardmountain

03/31/2002 05:15:22 PM

I have to side with Thomas Paine on this one, who said divine revelation is only divine to those it was revealed to - to everyone else it's heresay. That aside, the author makes a number of logical and/or historical errors, of which there are too many to go into without writing more than people would probably care to read. To his point, though, that Christianity would be lost without historical belief in Jesus's resurrection, I would strongly disagree. Personally, the matter doesn't give me much pause one way or the other. Jesus's message to humanity would be the same and just as important if it came from the son of God or magically from the speakers in a department store. If Jesus were merely a human being, I think that would make his story and teachings more miraculous, not less. Happy Easter and peace be with you!

Mindsight

03/31/2002 09:40:36 AM

My own faith does not depend on the scientific veracity of the gospel accounts of the resurrection, but rather on my intimate experience of the Living Christ. Easter is not history or dogma, it is an eternal truth to be apprehended and lived in the present. He is risen indeed!

Zero-Equals-Infinity

03/31/2002 07:18:20 AM

"It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. This is the approach of people who want to maintain their faith even at the expense of historical reality or the facts." How dreadfully ironic. Historical denial/revision appears to be the hallmark of the literalist. The difficulty and harm of sustaining belief via internal schism (cognitive dissonance) is readily witnessed in those who are committed to this. Faith is not contingent and draws its strength from what is both unknown and unknowable. That is what makes it mysterious and compelling. "i"dolatry is where the symbol as form is of greater importance than that to which our attention is focused through the symbol. May each find faith that relieves us of fear, and unfolds awareness of the Divine presence.

Advertisement

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook