Thoughts on Jesus' Resurrection

by Perry 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  rawe

  Hi mP,

  "Even Paul knows nothing about Jesus the man. scan thru all his writings and write down the facts you learn about jesus."

  It is amazing that one can spead a life time reading the Bible and not see obvious details like this. Only after I left the faith for several years, did I finally watch the documentary The God Who Wasn't There, by Brian Flemming, wherein I saw this point made for the first time.

  Since then I have thought about this argument. I will say it is interesting and is something that could support the notion that Jesus never really existed. However, I think there are a couple reasonable ways of explaining this issue. Paul generally wrote letters to congregations of believers, who would already know the back story of Jesus. As a writer, his style does not seem to be one of historical reflection, but instead on knowledge of God wrapped in the Christ (Col 2:3).

  Paul is introduced to us in Acts, which is really a continuation of Luke, that is of course one of the gospels that has the life story of Jesus.

  Finally, I would think that a need for a written narrative of the life of Jesus would grow as the eyewitness period was ending. This, could be the reason why the first Christian writings are Paul's letters, followed by the 3 gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke).

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  designs

  Paul introduces Phenominalism into the coversion mix. The nebulous to distinct bright light sensation. See a bright light or apparition and it must be a sign from the supernatural level. Mix in a little mass hysteria and you have yourself a very devout group.
• 

  rawe

  Hi Rose Mary,

  "Lazarus was reportedly resurrected after being four days in the tomb, hence is not an ordinary event, but most spectacular display of power, and was the grand finale of miracles; yet why did all three gospel accounts which were written earlier did not know of this great event, but found only in the Gospel of John written towards 96-98 AD?"

  The resurrection of Lazarus is interesting. It is as you say, only recorded in John, a very late and different Gospel. A few bits of John strike me as attempt to answer likely objections to other accounts in circulation. When Jesus mentions the signal of "dipping the morsel" and giving it to Judas it is John that tells us about the "leaning back" (John 13:25 vs Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20, Luke 22:23), thus answering the question of why Judas was not tipped off.

  One could argue that the resurrection of Lazarus was so well known during the eyewitness period it didn't need to be written down. That seems unlikely, considering that Luke says he had traced "all" things, it would be rather hard to justify leaving this out of the story.

  The story of Lazarus seems to serve a couple purposes. It certainly could answer any objection that earlier accounts of ressurections involved people that weren't really dead. I would also suggest, as time marched on, there would be growing concern in the community of believers about the return of Jesus, the fate of those who already had died and their own life coming to an end. Not at all unlike the feelings some long time members of our former faith, who hoped all their lives for a get-out-of-jail-free card in regards to death.

  You'll notice, in the account Jesus intentionally delays (John 11:6) to the point Lazarus dies.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  cofty

  Interesting how any evidence or reasoning to the contrary just gets ignored by the "faithful".

  Mustn't let facts get in the way of a good superstition.
• 

  designs

  cofty- Its also interesting the criteria Evangelicals set for something being from the 'real God', apparently bright lights in your bedroom are proof solid but a Pentecostal speaking in tongues is from demons and a face of Jesus showing up on a Tortilla is just way to RCC
• 

  cofty

  I just wish there was more intellectual honesty.

  Why don't believers just celebrate faith?

  If there was ovewhelmingly strong evidence that Jesus was raised, there would be no need of faith. Since that isn't the case they make a virtue out of faith, "happy is he that does not see and yet believes" - JC circa 33 AD.

  The attraction of rationalism is too strong to resist. Instead of embracing the faith that is required to fill the gap left by the paucity of evidence, they make up evidence in order to reduce the amount of faith that is necessary.

  Why not honestly and proudly declare the total lack of evidence and the strength of their belief regardless?
• 

  MadGiant

  Cofty: "Interesting how any evidence or reasoning to the contrary just gets ignored by the "faithful".

  Mustn't let facts get in the way of a good superstition."

  You are totally right.

  "Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, “Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.”? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

  — Sam Harris

  Take care,

  Ismael
• 

  cofty

  Ismael - I like Sam Harris. He has a way of cutting through the BS and getting to the core of an issue.
• 

  mP

  Hi rawe The argument that P didn't mention facts about J makes no sense. He often gives other mundane facts that we can assume they already knew. He repeats personal details about himself which they already knew. The easier to believe or ponder fact is that P didn't know our J. If you read the text J exists on a different spiritual plane. P's Judaism is different from that of the apostles.
• 

  mP

  Rawe: Even the story of P is extraordinary. How can a single manager with limited means manage so many churches across continents ? Even today with phones, planes and mote that would've an achievement but this man does it all by himself.