The Resurrection

[driver]

I'm just curious at what Christian Deism believes about the Resurrection? What evidence do we have against it if we take the Bible out of the equation?

[cclendenen]

I'm just curious at what Christian Deism believes about the Resurrection? What evidence do we have against it if we take the Bible out of the equation?

The same evidence we have for it.

[Lily]

Personally, I just don't see any reasonable purpose for the resurrection, nor any meaning to my life and my decisions. For years I didn't question it, but whey I finally did, I found the question of why unanswered. Honestly, how does it impact your daily life? Why would it be necessary for any of us that Jesus rose from the grave?

[driver]

Hi Lily. I am going to buy a book, "The Resurrection of Jesus" written by some of the fellows on the Jesus Seminar. The fellows are scholars. Of 100% of what Jesus supposedly said only 15% are believed to be the words of Jesus, including the book of Thomas. They will probably conclude that the resurrection stories are myths, but something happened to make the first followers believe as strongly as they did. I think they will comment on this.

[driver]

Whatever is decided will I still get my Easter candy?

[mystic444]

I'm just curious at what Christian Deism believes about the Resurrection? What evidence do we have against it if we take the Bible out of the equation?

I'm not really sure that I even understand your question. So far as I know, there is no 'evidence' against the resurrection - whether that be resurrection in general, or specifically the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly there is no evidence against the resurrection in the Bible. There are discrepancies concerning chronology and other details (who saw the resurrected Jesus, and when), but there is unanimous agreement - to the best of my knowledge - among New Testament writers that Jesus was found to be dead by an experienced Roman centurion (experienced in recognizing death, and accountable to higher authority if he made a mistake), and that he was seen by many people to be walking around alive after his crucifixion and declared death.

There is also plenty of evidence - especially in recent years - of people who have been declared dead by competent medical personnel, who have nevertheless 'returned to life' (or 'resurrected'). Whether or not those competent medical personnel were too quick to declare death, or misjudged, people can argue forever. There is certainly 'evidence' in favor of the reality of 'resurrection' in some instances, for those who are not predisposed to consider it impossible.

To my way of thinking, the important thing is life after death, no matter what form it takes. Jesus' resurrection (and other instances both in Biblical times and modern times) certainly would give strong evidence in favor of life after death. In Jesus' case, at least, it would also show that humanity, when fully consciously united with the Divine Life which is our source and sustaining power, can achieve such life mastery that even physical death can be conquered. We can be masters of our life and death, just as Jesus was. Reports about some of the 'Eastern mystics' also verify this - if you believe those reports. But the main thing is not that we can either decide not to die physically, or else revivify our dead bodies (by the power of the Divine within us); but that we are 'souls' who cannot die; we presently live within these bodies, and we will continue to live after these bodies die. Perhaps our 'souls' can revivify our bodies; but ultimately these bodies are only intended for temporary physical existence, while soul/spirit is 'eternal'.

That is my personal thought, but I am only one Christian Deist. Probably most Christian Deists consider the resurrection of Jesus to be myth, not literal 'truth'.

[dean3333]

An ancient Egyptian god, Osiris, was reported to be born of a virgin, died at the hands of evil doers, and then rose from the dead three days later. Pretty suspicious that the same story shows up centuries later with the Hebrews.

The stories in the Bible happened centuries ago. Man was very primitive in those days as compared to today and written communication was very spotty. Many of the Hebrew stories are based in oral tradition. Why is it many believe these events? All of the stories are "Here-Say" which is a form of "evidence" not admissible in our court systems.

Dead tissue has never reanimated since that time. For the resurrection to occur, a suspension of the natural laws found in our universe must be suspended. When's the last time natural law has been suspended for anything?

[Lily]

Thanks, Driver, I look forward to hearing what you have to share about it. You'll probably still have to buy your own Easter Candy!

[driver]

I should have made the question: do you believe in the historical resurrection or is it a complete myth? Something did happen to make Rome not win over Jesus's death. People were willing to follow his ways after his death. What did his followers experience?

[mystic444]

I should have made the question: do you believe in the historical resurrection or is it a complete myth? Something did happen to make Rome not win over Jesus's death. People were willing to follow his ways after his death. What did his followers experience?

I'm sure you've figured out ( ) that I believe in a historical resurrection; it's not complete myth. I believe the old adage "where there's smoke, there's fire" applies here. The accounts of Jesus' resurrection were not like the legends of gods, or the Old Testament stories of Abraham, Moses, and Joshua; those legends weren't written (in their present form, at least) for several centuries at least after the supposed occurrence of the events. Some of the 'gospel' accounts about Jesus were written down perhaps as early as 10 to 15 years after Jesus' death, and they were based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses of the events (if not written by the eyewitnesses themselves). We have letters of Peter and John, who strongly affirmed that they were eyewitnesses of the things they say. Paul wrote 20 to 30 years later that at least 500 people had seen the resurrected Jesus at the same time, and many of them were still alive. These stories of people who were alive at the time the events occurred made a very deep impression on the hearers - such a deep impression that there were large numbers of believers willing to die for their faith under persecutions both from Jewish leaders and from the Romans (for instance, Nero - who reigned from 52 to 68 AD - is notorious for the large numbers of Christians he had murdered; and large numbers of Christians were murdered under Domitian also).

It's true that there are plenty of discrepancies in the stories - although they are unanimous about the central fact of the resurrection - but those discrepancies themselves are an indication that the stories were coming from independent sources; they weren't invented by a group of scribes who conspired to create a new religious movement.

Dean3333 said:

Dead tissue has never reanimated since that time. For the resurrection to occur, a suspension of the natural laws found in our universe must be suspended. When's the last time natural law has been suspended for anything?

Well, all I can only say is that many of the 'near death' experiences seem to contradict that. As I said in my previous comment, many people have been declared dead by competent medical authorities, only to have those 'dead' people resuscitate later. In some cases, the 'dead' returned to life while on the autopsy table! One man in particular (and I wish I could include a reference here, but I've been searching in vain to find the sources where I read about it) was a dissident in Russia during its communist days, and was deliberately run over by a KGB agent. The murdered dissident was put in cold storage for 4 days (I don't recall what the reason for that delay was), and was then brought out for an official autopsy. Despite having been in cold storage for 4 days, he returned to life on the autopsy table (imagine the shock of the mortician), and gave an interesting and astounding account of what he had experienced while he was dead. Prior to his murder, he had been an atheist; afterward he was a convinced believer in 'God' - though in a mystical and perhaps Deist sense, not 'orthodox Christian' for sure. He became a minister in the Russian Orthodox Church (despite his very non 'orthodox' views). Later he was finally allowed to immigrate to the USA, where he became a minister in the United Methodist Church in Texas. (I'm sure he picked the United Methodists because they're a liberal denomination, and his unorthodox, non-evangelical views would be easily accepted there).

Now if these people were not really dead, though being declared so by medical practitioners, then it shows we still have a lot to understand about 'the laws of nature' (and what 'death' is) - so we can't be so sure of what requires a 'suspension' of those laws. If they were dead, and then 'resurrected', it again shows that we still have a lot to learn about natural laws and what can happen without a 'suspension' of those laws. (I don't believe that anything has ever happened, no matter how 'miraculous', which 'violated' or 'suspended' natural law. If it happened, there's a natural law which allows it to happen.) My own viewpoint is that if it's indistinguishable from death by medical experts, then it's death. But however that may be, we still have too much to learn to be able to dogmatically state that something can't be true because the laws of nature would have to be suspended in order for that to occur.

[Lily]

I had been so ready to abandon the idea of a physical resurrection, but you've given me reason to thing more deeply about it first. There are some interesting phenomenon associated with the interaction between the mind, and the body. Hysterical pregnancies, excessive strength during crisis, mysterious healings, people with disabilities who live far longer than medical science predicts, even psychokinetic phenomena the affects the physical world. We really don't know what the mind and body are capable of doing. We do know there is some ability to heal itself, but how much?

[dean3333]

Well, all I can only say is that many of the 'near death' experiences seem to contradict that. As I said in my previous comment, many people have been declared dead by competent medical authorities, only to have those 'dead' people resuscitate later.

I've studied the near death experience and believe wholly in it, but these people were
"near" death and not dead. No where in recorded history has anyone reantimated to life when dead. Dead is dead. There is no return.

I've read theories that if the resurrection story is true, it is quite possible that Jesus was not dead in the clinical sense, but recovered from his wounds.