Author Topic: The Life, Death And Resurrection Of Jesus Points To The Existence Of God - Not  (Read 1026 times)

John Prytz

  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
*According to William Lane Craig, the life, death and especially the resurrection of Jesus is strong evidence for the existence of God.

*Firstly not all scholars of ancient history and archaeology even agree that Jesus even existed. For example, YouTube the following: David Fitzgerald, Richard C. Carrier, and Robert M. Price. Even if Jesus did exist, he more likely as not was just an ordinary mortal with delusions of grandeur. Even if Jesus was born of a virgin and walked on water and healed the sick, etc. that in and of itself says nothing about the existence of God. For example, Buddha, Horus, Krishna and Zoroaster were also all born of a virgin!

*Further, the concept of a resurrection is not by any means restricted to Jesus. Resurrection, for example, was a common theme in Ancient Greek mythology. Hercules got resurrected by his daddy too! And in Ancient Egyptian mythology, Osiris was resurrected by Isis. Further, if you read the Gospels side-by-side instead on consecutively, you'll note that the various accounts of the resurrection of Jesus are inconsistent and contradictory with numerous discrepancies with respect to who (that differs) saw what; between what actually happened (that differs too) and when; and between when (timelines also differ) whatever happened actually happened. The personnel, events and timelines are not consistent.

*William Lane Craig was not personally present at the alleged resurrection of Jesus and so like everyone else has to rely on contradictory eye-witness accounts of the nature of someone who told someone who told someone, etc. from 2000 years ago, events which weren't actually written up until many decades after the fact. The upshot of that is that if one event in the Bible is contradicted by another event in the Bible, then anything and everything in the Bible is open to question and doubt. 

A Few Additional Thoughts

*William Lane Craig cites the post-dead and buried sightings of Jesus as proof of the resurrection of Jesus and therefore as proof of the existence of God. However, there have been many sightings of Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa and other notable "dead" celebrities post their alleged demise so does that mean that Elvis and Jimmy, etc. were also resurrected from the dead and if so does this mean that they too are divine and sons of God?

rap2017

  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Hello John
I am inclined to agree, the STORIES regarding a resurrection are more imagination than anything else.
Can anyone on this site PROVE the EXISTENCE of a "Jesus the Christ"
If anyone could they would have won a prize by now, it would be sensational news.
Lets just make a few points, the name Jesus is clearly a composite, from Jupiter and Zeus. In fact you cannot put the name "Jesus" into a time period before the 17th Century. Why? Because the letter J did not enter the English alphabet before that time. If you check out the 1611 KJV the there is no "J".
Therefore no Jerusalem, no Josephus, no Jericho, no Jews in fact any word with the letter J has to be replaced with the letter I.
Further, the only people with an alphabet in ancient times was the Egyptians. During antiquity the Romans and the Greeks were illiterate. Therefore they did not write a history of themselves. Hebrewism is a derivative of Greek. You can download Joseph Yahuda book of the title "Hebrew is Greek" as a pdf and read for yourself.
I look forward to your responses Ladies and Gentlemen.
 

Noro

  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Quote
*According to William Lane Craig, the life, death and especially the resurrection of Jesus is strong evidence for the existence of God.

*Firstly not all scholars of ancient history and archaeology even agree that Jesus even existed. For example, YouTube the following: David Fitzgerald, Richard C. Carrier, and Robert M. Price. Even if Jesus did exist, he more likely as not was just an ordinary mortal with delusions of grandeur. Even if Jesus was born of a virgin and walked on water and healed the sick, etc. that in and of itself says nothing about the existence of God. For example, Buddha, Horus, Krishna and Zoroaster were also all born of a virgin!

I'm pretty sure that Richard Carrier and Robert Price (I really enjoy watching his debates) are the only PhD's that advocate the Christ myth position. While that doesn't make them wrong, it does put a substantial burden of proof on them to prove their position since it rubs grain with 99% of all other academics. As for the mythological parallels...

Horus was born from Isis, whom had relations with Osiris after putting his body parts back together.

Buddha's mother, Queen Maya, was married to Siddhartha Guatama for 20ish years and gave birth to Buddha with no mention of a virgin birth. As far as i've researched, it's not common among Buddhists to believe that he was born of a virgin. It's idea conceived due to some misconceptions of a dream reported by Queen Maya.

The account of Zoroaster being born a virgin is dubious as far as i've seen. They mention that Zoro inhereted a "Kingly Glory," from his mother, which is hard to tie together with a virgin birth account.

Krishna had a father, Vasudeva, and a mother Devaki, so I'm not sure where the virgin account their comes in.

Regardless of these points, the only historical accounts we have for each of these mythological figures actually come AFTER the accounts we have of Christ. The primary historical sources for them date between second century to as far as 400AD. The gospels and other NT documents date from 25-80 AD.


Quote
*Further, the concept of a resurrection is not by any means restricted to Jesus. Resurrection, for example, was a common theme in Ancient Greek mythology. Hercules got resurrected by his daddy too! And in Ancient Egyptian mythology, Osiris was resurrected by Isis. Further, if you read the Gospels side-by-side instead on consecutively, you'll note that the various accounts of the resurrection of Jesus are inconsistent and contradictory with numerous discrepancies with respect to who (that differs) saw what; between what actually happened (that differs too) and when; and between when (timelines also differ) whatever happened actually happened. The personnel, events and timelines are not consistent.

While the parallels hold some minor similarities to the gospel accounts, they also include major differences. For example...

Osiris was cut into pieces and his body slices were spread across the lands. They were later rejoined and Osiris then becomes an underworld God. This is extremely different of the account of Christ where He died to free people from selfish living and to forgive people of evil actions where he was then resurrected. Sure Osiris came back alive in some sense, but the account is extremely different from the motif found in scripture that it hardly warrants being called a parallel in my opinion. Especially if the historical evidence for Osiris came after the gospels.

In reference to the gospels, minor discrepancies are actually what you would expect from multiple independent sources writing about the same event. If they were collaborating together, would you expect there to be any discrepancies? Writers paraphrase their accounts of a given event to get to the main point they want to get across. They also emphasize certain parts that they deem important while omitting, or glossing over details that seem insignificant. Sometimes writers even have small lapses of memory over details they don’t see as significant because those details have little to do with the primary points of the accounts they are writing. None of these factors diminish the general historical reliability of the gospels in my opinion. You actually see this sort of thing in commonly in the historical accounts of Alexander and others.

Quote
*William Lane Craig was not personally present at the alleged resurrection of Jesus and so like everyone else has to rely on contradictory eye-witness accounts of the nature of someone who told someone who told someone, etc. from 2000 years ago, events which weren't actually written up until many decades after the fact. The upshot of that is that if one event in the Bible is contradicted by another event in the Bible, then anything and everything in the Bible is open to question and doubt.
 

Eh, some hypothetical, minor contradictions over the number of people in a battle, number of swords taken on a journey, or gaps in genealogies hardly serve to undermine the historical evidence that we have for scripture. There are plenty of theologians that have views on innerancy and infallibility that leave space for those types of things. Most of the discrepancies I've seen though have a good explanation behind them. So, I'm skeptical of this claim.

johnfm

  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
I have a  different interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. It is not so important that he rose physically from the dead at least not as important to faith as christians generally think. Jesus died like everyone else because he had a physical body. The Resurrection doesnt imply that he rose physically from the dead. If he had there would be widespread sightings of Jesus walking around. Only a few people saw & recognized Jesus because he was in his spirit body not in his physical body. He passed in & out of material things like doors because he was in his glorious spirit body. The more important message to derive from the death & resurrection of Jesus is that ther exists a substantial spirit world parallel to our physical world & that Jesus entered this highest spiritual plane because of the perfection of his love as a single man. He lived & died as the son of God..he never wavered in his mission right up to the end. He was & is a man not comparable to normal human beings because of his pure heart, unconditional love & unwavering spirit. Halleluja