Skip to comments.A Debate for the Millennia: Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?[Washington Post article]
Posted on 04/09/2007 4:01:07 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Where you stand on the Resurrection tends to mirror how you interpret the Bible, said Stephen T. Davis, a professor of philosophy at California's Claremont McKenna College. Davis believes in the bodily resurrection, though he acknowledges some seemingly contradictory New Testament accounts.
"Some are easy and some I don't know how to reconcile," said Davis, a minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA). "They were different stories that got talked about and talked about, so its not surprising there would have been some discrepancies. But there's tremendous agreement on the basic facts."
Any discrepancies can be "eliminated by a straight-up reading of the text," said James Emery White, president of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a evangelical school in South Hamilton, Mass. "There's no sense that any of the earliest followers had the remotest sense that this was metaphorical."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I thought we had that one worked out already, after 2000 years. I wonder how these people did on their SATs. “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.”. Basic reading comprehension, you know.
Yes. Any other obvious answers needed?
It's not wise to quote Josephus in this regard. Almost all scholars consider the passage you quote to be a fraudulent insertion into the original text, (Google =Josephus jesus= and hunt around.) which could raise the question why someone thought fraud was nevessary.
Is this one of those “duuuuhhhh” questions?
Yes, and He saved my life.
Also, putting guards in front of a tomb was highly unusual, as this was a highly unusual circumstance. The guards were guarding the tomb and the body with their very lives. If they were attacked, they would have been expected to fight to the death. Because if they didn't, if someone stole the body, or got into the tomb, the guards would have been killed anyway.
Next, the tomb was sealed. Meaning there was a seal of Caesar administered by Pilate put upon the stone. Anyone violating that seal would have been put to death. Its highly unlikely that the distraught Apostles would have dared to face that for something they believed in, was to them, over. The Apostles were not looking for Jesus after the crucifixion, until the women told them Jesus had risen, and then they thought the women were delusional.
Next, the stone itself was a massive boulder, rolled down an embankment, into position. The only way to roll the stone away was uphill. Imagine how much a boulder 4'-6' round must weigh. A couple thousand pounds?
For the professor to postulate that the resurrection is a metaphor, proves he has an ulterior motive, as he blatantly disregards facts from his theory.
Next, he disregards every piece of eye witness accounting reported from the time. How do you disregard hundreds of eyewitness accounting? Were there any official documentations to refute the eye witness accounts? And if so, what were they based upon.
Lastly the Apostles, almost all, were martyred for not just their beliefs, but what they were teaching. Peter himself did not feel worthy of dieing the same way as Christ. So they crucified him upside down. Pretty extreme death for a metaphor.
For what the Gospel teaches, for someone to call the resurrection a metaphor, is someone who doesn't have the chutzpah to come right out and say the Bible is an outright lie. Or else the person doesn't have the mental intellect to understand what they are actually saying.
Either the Bible is absolute truth, or it is a complete lie. There is no middle ground.
If you see it in SF and feel it in your heart, well there’s your answer.
Spong is simply following modernist Bible scholarship, which has it that the Gospels are late compositions. The consensus among them is that except for Mark they were all composed after about 80 A.D. But that requires that we disregard all allusion to the destruction of the Temple as after the fact. I don’t see why we should.
Now that’s a truly beautiful answer to the question.
Great post, Mountn Man.
One thing I would like to add:
If one were trying to dispute the Gospels it would be extremely difficult to overcome the fact that the eyewitness accounts of women were allowed to remain given that women’s testimonies were deemed unreliable and unbelievable at that time. If they were attempting to gain believers by giving fraudulent accounts, that would have been the last thing they’d have done.
He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives in me....
I don’t doubt you are correct about the fraudulent Josephus texts....however, that does not make the Resurrectcion untrue.
My thought exactly. Our intrepid elites must investigate every single Biblical account of Jesus to the furthest extent that archaeology and science will allow. But Islamic miracles? Oh, that's their culture, we have to be sensitive.
IOW the MSM is trying to attack faith because as long as there is a right and a wrong they can never impose homosexual marriage, outlaw the concepts of mother and father, and just have relative morality.
Big Brother Lovers you, the MSM told us so.
“Did Jesus rise from the dead?
(way to many quotes, but it’s been a long day and an)
OK, good for you. Now go wash your brain out with peroxide. ;)
and alongside every pro easter movie is some anti-christian or jesus insulting hollyweird production.
Event the History channel attempted to get in on the act with documentaries with left wing preacher types.
I learn something new everyday. Thanks!
Since the Gospels themselves tell us that Jesus had both brothers and sisters, I think you can take that one to the bank. The rest of the stuff IS tripe, but it's clear Jesus had siblings. His brother James was the top Christian in Jerusalem until the Jews threw him off the top of a building an killed him.