Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

[Rasmus]

Here are some scriptures to chew on for you O so eager debaters.

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:3-6 ESV)

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” (John 14:21 ESV)

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:37-39 ESV)

Do you believe that Jesus Christ, died on the cross, was buried and then arose from the dead days later?

Yes I do.

After the crucifixion:

…So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. (John 19:32-34 ESV)

After the resurrection:

…Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:27-29 ESV)

Also, the bible does not state that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were at all parables. The writers go to great lengths to separate what they believed to be facts from parables by actually saying things equivalent to, “this is a parable”, and, “this is what happened in a specific moment in time”. Jesus even explains his own parables after teaching. The details of the crucifixion and resurrection are written in the format of a historical record from the perspectives of several eye witnesses. If you’re just going to read into it whatever the heck you want than I suppose that is quite irrelevant to you but saying that a book compiled over many years with several different styles of documentation is merely a book of parables is as ridiculous as saying every literary work is merely the sum of one isolated part found within it. Shakespeare is merely a stack of fables. Math books are merely a pile of numbers. Sheets of music are merely pages full of dots and lines. I think arguing Christianity or the bible with someone that hasn’t devoted any actual study to either is as pointless as trying to piss out a forest fire.

I am not the judge of souls but I will say this, the bible may be full of difficult and mysterious things but what allows a person into heaven and what damns them to a well deserved hell is by no means hidden. I encourage everyone to have a look. Please forgive me if I don’t hold your hand though, I guess I’ve become a little jaded over the years by people who want to argue everything, learn nothing, and laugh at their rescue rope while the ground gives way beneath their happy feet.


There is a story I once heard about a famous philosopher who was being pestered every day by a boy who kept saying he wanted the man to teach him. Finally the philosopher grabbed the boy and plunged his head into a water troth. The drowning lad fought the old philosopher with all his might but with no success. Finally, and at the last possible moment, the philosopher pulled him out and the boy gasped and coughed up water in confusion and terror. Why had the philosopher abused him so? The philosopher said something along the lines of, “until you want to learn as badly as you wanted breath just now I will not teach you”, and the boy ran away never bothering the old man again.

 

[muir]

@muir
What you say seems to imply that Nicea and other councils were about imposing conformity to a single belief. However, you overlook the possibility that such councils are upholding the belief that faith in the resurrection is based on a historical fact. In such a case, your theory that councils operate to control opinions/outlooks does not deal with the possibility that the belief of Catholic bishops at councils is that Christ truly and actually rose from the dead.

In other words, as a non-Christian you are imputing non-Christian motives to Christian bishops, which is not a tenable method for understanding history.

No i'm saying that the guys who had ultimate say for example constantine did not believe in the resurrection...he was a member of the sol invictus cult.....this was damage limitatation by the roman empire that was threating at that time to come apart at the seams

Some bishops may well have taken a literal view but if they had they would have missed the symbolism within christianity and were therefore corrupting its message

The resurrection god is OLD see for example Tammuz or Dionysis or Osiris

 

[slant]

Is this even something that a discussion can revolve around?

The answer is pretty simple.


Given the fact in the thousands of years of history after this event that there has never been any scientific proof that ANY living thing can be brought back to life after it has been clinically dead for more than three hours.

No, a man was not brought back to life after being dead for days.

 

[muir]

Is this even something that a discussion can revolve around?

The answer is pretty simple.


Given the fact in the thousands of years of history after this event that there has never been any scientific proof that ANY living thing can be brought back to life after it has been clinically dead for more than three hours.

No, a man was not brought back to life after being dead for days.

Lol....yes that is the case in a literal sense

People need to realise that there is no conclusive proof that we have been passed down unchanged, unedited eye witness accounts. Many people have tried to change christianity thats why we have so many versions of the bible!

People have been editing it since the beginning!

What people need to do when they've washed the water off their face after the philosopher has plunged their face into the pool is realise that the stories in the bible are all related to or inspired by dreams and visions whether it is by moses, jesus, paul, ezekiel, abraham or whoever

DREAMS & VISIONS

It is about the primacy of the unconscious mind and how people have been guided by it.

Whether the message from those peoples dreams and vision have been recorded accurately and then passed down unchanged or not it is still upto you how you apply the messages contained within them to your life

Notice all the ifs and buts in the above passage.....lots of moving parts there....lets look again:

IF you can be 100% sure the dream or vision has been recorded accurately

IF you can be 100% sure the message has been interpreted properly from the dream or vision

IF you can be 100% sure the record of the dream and vision or message gleaned from it has been recorded (accurately) has it then been passed down over 2000 years (sometimes more than this in the old testament) without being edited or mistranslated whether by design or honest error?

IF you can then glean a truth from the message and apply it to enrich your life experience

.......then you can start talking about certainties, until then you need to go and splash some cold water on your face and wake upto the reality that the power and beauty in the bible is not in a literal translation but in understanding that it is largely inspired by the unconscious mind and that it has been much altered over its lifespan

The resurrection is a powerful motif that is archetypal to the unconscious mind and is found again and again in religions much older that christianity.

 

[slant]

Yeah cursing your son for being concerned that you're naked and drunk in a tent is really an awesome dream and vision

 

[CindyLou]

The gospels were clearly written to be taken literally. If you have any history background you would know this.

I'm not making the statement that the entire bible should be taken literally or that you have to accept that the resurrection is a fact, but that's the way it was written. There are parts of the the bible not written to be read literally but the gospels...no. I'm sorry.

 

[Kmal]

Also, the bible does not state that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were at all parables. The writers go to great lengths to separate what they believed to be facts from parables by actually saying things equivalent to, “this is a parable”, and, “this is what happened in a specific moment in time”. Jesus even explains his own parables after teaching. The details of the crucifixion and resurrection are written in the format of a historical record from the perspectives of several eye witnesses. If you’re just going to read into it whatever the heck you want than I suppose that is quite irrelevant to you but saying that a book compiled over many years with several different styles of documentation is merely a book of parables is as ridiculous as saying every literary work is merely the sum of one isolated part found within it. Shakespeare is merely a stack of fables. Math books are merely a pile of numbers. Sheets of music are merely pages full of dots and lines. I think arguing Christianity or the bible with someone that hasn’t devoted any actual study to either is as pointless as trying to piss out a forest fire.

How else would they write the gospels if not for in a historical format? Did they not have a motive? Did they not want for the mind of christ to be passed along and accepted? Or was there no lesson to be learned from the death and ressurection? Just because it operates as a parable doesnt take away anything from it- they may have written it so it looks to be taken literally, but consider the source. The hebrew language was very simple-

Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted and/or heard. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; “He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaf does not wither". In this passage we have concrete words expressing abstract thoughts, such as a tree (one who is upright, righteous), streams of water (grace), fruit (good character) and a unwithered leaf (prosperity).Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can not be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never uses abstract thought as English does.

Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms 103:8; “The LORD iscompassionate and gracious, Slow to anger, abounding in love”. As you noticed I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not abstract thoughts, but here we have such abstract concepts as compassionate, gracious, anger, and love in a Hebrew passage. Actually these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English.
Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. Anger, an abstract word, is actually the Hebrew word אף (awph) which literally means “nose”, a concrete word. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as “the flaring of the nose (nostrils)”. If the translator literally translated the above passage “slow to nose”, it would make no sense to the English reader, so אף, a nose, is translated to “anger” in this passage.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_thought.html

The gospels were clearly written to be taken literally. If you have any history background you would know this.

I'm not making the statement that the entire bible should be taken literally or that you have to accept that the resurrection is a fact, but that's the way it was written. There are parts of the the bible not written to be read literally but the gospels...no. I'm sorry.

In that they were written as if it happened physically? They knew of abstract things and consciousness. They did the best they could to explain those things, even if under the guise of physical happenings. They didnt just want you to believe, they want you to understand.

Yeah cursing your son for being concerned that you're naked and drunk in a tent is really an awesome dream and vision

You dont realize they were talking about humans? Should all the human parts be cut out? How can there be such thing as perfection if not for imperfection?

 

[grt$5vb]

A man cannot rise from the dead... thus the point. Christianity is a faith, not a religion.

 

[slant]

I don't think that the way people should strive to live, ideally, should be what the contents of the bible are or really any other book. It's completely irrational to base all of your beliefs on one book even if it's supposed to be some epic collection of stories that teach you the right and wrong ways to be. There is so much fucked up shit with the bible that to look at it in any other way than a work of fiction is simply retarded. There are a million other books out there that have morals and lessons which I chose to read AND NOT WORSHIP instead. The bible has only survived historically for so long because it was a method of control. It's always been a method of control and for some stupid reason people cling to it like it's oxygen. It's not. There is NO evidence that backs up the bible! NONE. It's a bunch of stories. Worshiping one collection of stories is as stupid as me picking up the collection of Jungle Book novels and saying that it's the basis of my life now.

 

[Kmal]

I don't think that the way people should strive to live, ideally,should be what the contents of the bible are or really any other book. It's completely irrational to base all of your beliefs on one book even if it's supposed to be some epic collection of stories that teach you the right and wrong ways to be. There is so much fucked up shit with the bible that to look at it in any other way than a work of fiction is simply retarded. There are a million other books out there that have morals and lessons which I chose to read AND NOT WORSHIP instead. The bible has only survived historically for so long because it was a method of control. It's always been a method of control and for some stupid reason people cling to it like it's oxygen. It's not. There is NO evidence that backs up the bible! NONE. It's a bunch of stories. Worshiping one collection of stories is as stupid as me picking up the collection of Jungle Book novels and saying that it's the basis of my life now.

You've such a distaste for how people use the Bible- well that's not the Bibles fault. That's people being people! It's not the book theyre worshipping, its the ideas in the book. So should we only pass on ideas by word of mouth? I happen to think written record is a good way of passing down information.

 

[This]

I don't personally believe so, no. I'm not completely closed to the possibility though, I just find it highly unlikely.

 

[muir]

Yeah cursing your son for being concerned that you're naked and drunk in a tent is really an awesome dream and vision

Ha ha!

Yes naked drunken carry-ons in tents (or elsewhere) can lead to some pretty wacky dreams and situations in general

Dreams are individual to the person having them and they will not reflect their intent in the same way that our conscious mind does

It can be raw, visceral and shocking but sometimes we need a jolt to reasses what we are doing in the waking world and to perhaps give us a new perception on things

Perhaps there are underlying truths about human nature to be gleaned from the mad adventures of various people in the bible?

The french magician eliphas levi said that tarot is the book of thoth passed down from the egyptians via the hebrews (via moses)

The tarot cards deal with archetypes of the unconscious mind and they serve as a tool for people to use to try and communicate better with their unconscious mind in order to resolve unresolved issues in their life

Some people are more adept at making sense of these things then others....these people would often become the shamen of their community and might be able to resolve peoples inner turmoil (as well as using plants to heal physical ailments....but i doubt anywhere as effectively as modern medicine can)

In my mind we should look to combine the best of the new and the old. We should learn from the old systems of how to engage with our unconscious mind in order to try and become more integrated/individuated people whilst getting the best out of modern technology and modern science/medicine

I don't think we have the balance yet....in fact we're no where near, but i also think that there is a reason for that which is that the elites don't want us to be balanced

Its all there though within our grasp and innovations such as the internet and forums such as this one (hats off to the technical wizadry of DeathJam and others!) have the potential if used right (and not suppressed by elites) to really open new worlds upto us

 

[muir]

I don't think that the way people should strive to live, ideally, should be what the contents of the bible are or really any other book. It's completely irrational to base all of your beliefs on one book even if it's supposed to be some epic collection of stories that teach you the right and wrong ways to be. There is so much fucked up shit with the bible that to look at it in any other way than a work of fiction is simply retarded. There are a million other books out there that have morals and lessons which I chose to read AND NOT WORSHIP instead. The bible has only survived historically for so long because it was a method of control. It's always been a method of control and for some stupid reason people cling to it like it's oxygen. It's not. There is NO evidence that backs up the bible! NONE. It's a bunch of stories. Worshiping one collection of stories is as stupid as me picking up the collection of Jungle Book novels and saying that it's the basis of my life now.

Yeah i think youre right that understanding can be and arguably should be gained from as many different sources as possible

 

[GracieRuth]

View attachment 14143
View attachment 14144
View attachment 14145

Nope, nothing beautiful here.
It sure is a dull, drab existence I'm living.
Sorry, I know it's off topic... I'll stop.

These are pictures of the natural world. Are atheists now claiming to be the Creators of the universe?
While individual atheists may create beauty, you simply don't see atheists gathering together in large groups, creating beauty. There is nothing that atheists do which is comparable to rite and liturgy.

Now if you wanna go out and change that, and create the First Atheist Church of Random Beauty, I support you.

 

[GracieRuth]

A man cannot rise from the dead... thus the point. Christianity is a faith, not a religion.

This is loaded with unlogical progressions. Thus? There is no thus. Your first point doesn't warrant the conclusion. Next problem: faith and religion have an overlap in that religious faith is a subcategory of religion. You statement is thus like saying "An apple is a fruit, not a food."

 

[grt$5vb]

I was responding to slant saying a man cannot rise from the dead. Jesus is God as a man, not the same thing. It takes faith to believe that. In my eyes religion is about customs, judgement, doctrine above people. I am not about that.
[MENTION=4576]GracieRuth[/MENTION]

 

[just me]

Don't like polls, so I will not be counted. I'd like to throw a wrench in the wheels, though.

I believe I will rise from the dead. Guess that should answer the question.

 

[Quiet]

I am sure that 'Jesus' did exist but I dont think Jesus literally died and then was raised from the dead. I dont see how it matters though. The story in itself has so much power and meaning, and has effected so many people that it may as well have happened. However anyone wants to intepret this story, the reality is Christianity does exist and has existed for a long time. it is a narrative that has grown and evolved, and shaped most of our lives and is still being used in many power heirarchies and systems of governance. After all is said and done, its the meaning and effect/affect that remains, not the actuality of events. I think this is fairly clear.
With our modern media it is fairly apparant that 'news' is less about actual events and more about the 'story' and perception of what happened, according to any specific agenda. Everything is like this. We see through our eyes, yet we dont understand what our eyes are. We filter though our perception, past experience and mind, yet we dont understand these. Everything is subjective. We all have our own story. We all write our own story. That 'is' the truth of it.

I think this story, as all these stories in Religious and cultural texts is highly symbolic. We have to remember that people had a different culture then, they were in a different phase of development, they had different ideas about morality and authority, and they had different community structure, governance, knowledge, access and exposure to ideas and a different language. There have always been organisations within organised religion such as gnosticism, kabbalah and quabalah (philosphy, mysticism, spirituality) that have explored this inner world behind the popular texts.

Im thinking, only thinking here so dont get your panties too much in a knot...

perhaps there are different levels and phases of thought, all overlapping, some concurrent...

Phase 1- self preservation

Phase 2- customs- cultural good/bad/same/different

Phase 3- morality- personal and cultural customs/values- good/bad/same different

Phase 4- organised cultural systems of thoughts- such as religion and science- rules, laws, faith in objective reality and external conditions and authority, culturally agreed upon facts and figures, absolute faith in religious and cultural system, in science etc

Phase 5 -personalised science and religion- using these systems of thought in a more critical and personally relevant way. Critical thinking, questioning the official and coming up with one's own personally meaningful explanation and experience. Using the external as raw data, and synthesising with internal data and alternate ways of thinking to form new hypothesis and explanations. Questioning more. Wondering where root assumptions come from and whether or not they are vaild/reliable, less reliance on authority, uisng authority as guidance, rather than seeing as absolute

Phase 6-philosophy- more critical thinking, more questioning, more exploring, looking beyond the official and breaking it down, looking at history and related event to draw a more cohesive picture, finding the 'raw' lessons, messages and reasoning behind thought, religion and science. Seeing authority as merely interesting and another part of the puzzle to be analysed. Studying context, comparing, constrasting and analysing. Wondering where root assumptions, ideas, thoughts, things come from. Using the external more as quide rather than seeing it as concrete. Idealism and realism. Looking into the unconcious as well as the unconsious

Phase 7- mysticism- questioning everything, searching beyond the outer layers and external representation. An understanding that the external is a manifestation of the internal. Seeing patterns, context and underlying themes. Highly symbolic and creative thought. Open and free thought, studying the unconcious and well as the conscious. Seeing hidden meaning, communication via dreams, parables and art. Not stuck in dichotomies, aware of limitiations and seeks to grow beyond them

Phase 8- spirituality- freedom from many external and cultural. Being able to understand the unconsious and consiously mainfest into the physical world. Freedom of thought and ideas, from rigid concepts, from fear and hatred. Strong desire to understand, appreciate and help. Freedom to move from one system of thought to another, hold them concurrently and flow beyond them. Being able to move past ego. Beyond dichotomies

 

[Kmal]

It matters if you want to be in their club house, you have to know the secret hand shake, and you don't. I am not needlessly complicating things, I have nothing between myself and my love for the way the scientific method works and as such I dont need reasons for why the universe exists the way it does, it just does and learning how it works is good enough for me, there is so much beauty in it.

You must think the secret handshake is saying "I am a Christian" huh? How do you know if others have the secret handshake if you dont know it? I think what you're referring to is the emotional 'need' to be called a Christian and be accepted by their peers (and maybe the all-powerful God who might throw you into hell if you dont believe), not the understandment of the morals. There can be a certain unattractiveness to someone who blindly believes in something without understanding- we arent here to exacerbate it or alienate them. To show real holes in a misunderstanding, it is required to understand the collective. If you are to undermine their character, be courteous enough to offer a viable solution. Take into consideration that people genuinely want to be accepted by their peers. They might not understand christianity as was intended by the writers, but be good enough to understand it better than them so you can correct them instead of criticize them for their beliefs and identity.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

A man cannot rise from the dead... thus the point. Christianity is a faith, not a religion.

[MENTION=528]slant[/MENTION]

What you said earlier about dead beings being brought back to life and purplecrayons' statement are both connected.

The impossibility of us bringing the truly dead back to life - let alone a dead man bringing himself back to life - is not something which the Christian religion objects to. Christ's resurrection, in the Christian faith is explicitly connected to the belief that Jesus is not like us, insofar as he is God as well as man.

The belief in the resurrection of Christ is entirely connected with the belief in the divinity of Christ.