Is the resurrection of Jesus false?

[Charlemagne]

You could not believe his teachings on behavior were correct and then despise his own behavior as a teacher and performer of miracles.

My guess is that you are not a scholar of religion. Not everything the Gospels say Jesus said and did is really what Jesus did say and do. People did once believe in miracles but now people don't believe in miracles.

You do Christianity no favours by harnessing Christianity to a medieval perspective on what is possible.

You cannot speak for all Christendom. How do you personally know that the gospels lie? Did you know Jesus?

It's not a lie to teach religious doctrines. The Gospels are edited by clever editors for the purpose of religious teachings to people of a time long ago. Modern needs have changed and we now need a reasonable faith that is not supernatural.

In order to fashion a reasonable faith we need the Gospels as serious literature and traditional carriers of morality. If we are to understand the life of Jesus of Nazareth we need to know what, among all the material in the Gospels, he probably said and what he probably did not say.

Probably said and probably did not say? Probably did and probably did not do? Sounds like you are in the business of inventing a new religion based on a calculus of probabilities. Good luck with that.

[Belindi]

My guess is that you are not a scholar of religion. Not everything the Gospels say Jesus said and did is really what Jesus did say and do. People did once believe in miracles but now people don't believe in miracles.

You do Christianity no favours by harnessing Christianity to a medieval perspective on what is possible.

You cannot speak for all Christendom. How do you personally know that the gospels lie? Did you know Jesus?

It's not a lie to teach religious doctrines. The Gospels are edited by clever editors for the purpose of religious teachings to people of a time long ago. Modern needs have changed and we now need a reasonable faith that is not supernatural.

In order to fashion a reasonable faith we need the Gospels as serious literature and traditional carriers of morality. If we are to understand the life of Jesus of Nazareth we need to know what, among all the material in the Gospels, he probably said and what he probably did not say.

Probably said and probably did not say? Probably did and probably did not do? Sounds like you are in the business of inventing a new religion based on a calculus of probabilities. Good luck with that.

All knowledge is based on probability and can't be 100%. You don't want to believe something about Jesus that is probably not true.

[Charlemagne]

You cannot speak for all Christendom. How do you personally know that the gospels lie? Did you know Jesus?

It's not a lie to teach religious doctrines. The Gospels are edited by clever editors for the purpose of religious teachings to people of a time long ago. Modern needs have changed and we now need a reasonable faith that is not supernatural.

In order to fashion a reasonable faith we need the Gospels as serious literature and traditional carriers of morality. If we are to understand the life of Jesus of Nazareth we need to know what, among all the material in the Gospels, he probably said and what he probably did not say.

Probably said and probably did not say? Probably did and probably did not do? Sounds like you are in the business of inventing a new religion based on a calculus of probabilities. Good luck with that.

All knowledge is based on probability and can't be 100%. You don't want to believe something about Jesus that is probably not true.

Would you please offer a for-instance of something that is probably not true?

[Belindi]

It's not a lie to teach religious doctrines. The Gospels are edited by clever editors for the purpose of religious teachings to people of a time long ago. Modern needs have changed and we now need a reasonable faith that is not supernatural.

In order to fashion a reasonable faith we need the Gospels as serious literature and traditional carriers of morality. If we are to understand the life of Jesus of Nazareth we need to know what, among all the material in the Gospels, he probably said and what he probably did not say.

Probably said and probably did not say? Probably did and probably did not do? Sounds like you are in the business of inventing a new religion based on a calculus of probabilities. Good luck with that.

All knowledge is based on probability and can't be 100%. You don't want to believe something about Jesus that is probably not true.

Would you please offer a for-instance of something that is probably not true?

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

The Jesus Seminar

[Charlemagne]

Probably said and probably did not say? Probably did and probably did not do? Sounds like you are in the business of inventing a new religion based on a calculus of probabilities. Good luck with that.

All knowledge is based on probability and can't be 100%. You don't want to believe something about Jesus that is probably not true.

Would you please offer a for-instance of something that is probably not true?

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

The Jesus Seminar

Because you say these things are probably not true, it does not follow that they are probably not true. What you are saying is that you cannot believe they are probably true. But many people find them to be probably true. So, it is only by the limits of your imagination and your ability to accept Jesus that you MUST find these things probably not true.

[Belindi]

All knowledge is based on probability and can't be 100%. You don't want to believe something about Jesus that is probably not true.

Would you please offer a for-instance of something that is probably not true?

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

The Jesus Seminar

Because you say these things are probably not true, it does not follow that they are probably not true. What you are saying is that you cannot believe they are probably true. But many people find them to be probably true. So, it is only by the limits of your imagination and your ability to accept Jesus that you MUST find these things probably not true.

Jesus is unlikely to have said them. The authors, Matthew, Mark, and John said them.

[Charlemagne]

Would you please offer a for-instance of something that is probably not true?

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

The Jesus Seminar

Because you say these things are probably not true, it does not follow that they are probably not true. What you are saying is that you cannot believe they are probably true. But many people find them to be probably true. So, it is only by the limits of your imagination and your ability to accept Jesus that you MUST find these things probably not true.

Jesus is unlikely to have said them. The authors, Matthew, Mark, and John said them.

This is entirely what you would like to believe, rather than anything else.
You have been drugged by atheists into believing the improbable.

Alessandro Volta, Italian physicist, chemist, and a pioneer of electricity

“I studied attentively the grounds and basis of religion, the works of apologists and assailants, the reasons for and against, and I can say that the result of such study is to clothe religion with such a degree of probability, even for the merely natural reason, that every spirit unperverted by sin and passion, every naturally noble spirit must love and accept it. May this confession which has been asked from me and which I willingly give, written and subscribed by my own hand, with authority to show it to whomsoever you will, for I am not ashamed of the Gospel, may it produce some good fruit!"

[Ecurb]

Jesus is unlikely to have said them. The authors, Matthew, Mark, and John said them.

Of course. But it's not unlikely that Jesus said something similar (albeit not in English -- probably in Hebrew, I'm not sure).

The notion that famous prophets are "invented" by their chroniclers is plausible, but not certain. The more famous and influential the prophet, the more likely that his words will be remembered; that the chroniclers will be careful in writing precisely what the prophet said; and that the chronicle will be reasonably accurate. If some sect claims to have the "bones of the Buddha" in its possession, it's easy to dismiss the claims as the fabrications of the credulous. For us non-believers, any bones will do. For the faithful, though, it's vitally important that the bones are actually Buddha's.

Historians argue about whether Boswell invented Samuel Johnson. Perhaps he did. But there's no reason to think that the Gospel writers were less accurate than Boswell. Indeed, because of the prophet's divine mandate, it is likely they are more accurate, or at least more careful at attempting accuracy.

[Belindi]

Jesus is unlikely to have said them. The authors, Matthew, Mark, and John said them.

Of course. But it's not unlikely that Jesus said something similar (albeit not in English -- probably in Hebrew, I'm not sure).

The notion that famous prophets are "invented" by their chroniclers is plausible, but not certain. The more famous and influential the prophet, the more likely that his words will be remembered; that the chroniclers will be careful in writing precisely what the prophet said; and that the chronicle will be reasonably accurate. If some sect claims to have the "bones of the Buddha" in its possession, it's easy to dismiss the claims as the fabrications of the credulous. For us non-believers, any bones will do. For the faithful, though, it's vitally important that the bones are actually Buddha's.

Historians argue about whether Boswell invented Samuel Johnson. Perhaps he did. But there's no reason to think that the Gospel writers were less accurate than Boswell. Indeed, because of the prophet's divine mandate, it is likely they are more accurate, or at least more careful at attempting accuracy.

The past of historiography is significantly unlike historiography in the twenty first century, and generally speaking since the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The original writers of the NT were not historiographers such as today's more scientifically- enlightened men who review ancient texts, the purposes of their authors, and the prevailing socio-politico-economic circumstances of the times and places. Modern historians are informed by scepticism towards sources, by social anthropology, and by archaeology.

While it's true that interpretation is a large part of historiography, there is little doubt that science has enlightened the bare facts that underpin the writing-up of man's past.

[Charlemagne]

Jesus is unlikely to have said them. The authors, Matthew, Mark, and John said them.

Of course. But it's not unlikely that Jesus said something similar (albeit not in English -- probably in Hebrew, I'm not sure).

The notion that famous prophets are "invented" by their chroniclers is plausible, but not certain. The more famous and influential the prophet, the more likely that his words will be remembered; that the chroniclers will be careful in writing precisely what the prophet said; and that the chronicle will be reasonably accurate. If some sect claims to have the "bones of the Buddha" in its possession, it's easy to dismiss the claims as the fabrications of the credulous. For us non-believers, any bones will do. For the faithful, though, it's vitally important that the bones are actually Buddha's.

Historians argue about whether Boswell invented Samuel Johnson. Perhaps he did. But there's no reason to think that the Gospel writers were less accurate than Boswell. Indeed, because of the prophet's divine mandate, it is likely they are more accurate, or at least more careful at attempting accuracy.

The past of historiography is significantly unlike historiography in the twenty first century, and generally speaking since the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The original writers of the NT were not historiographers such as today's more scientifically- enlightened men who review ancient texts, the purposes of their authors, and the prevailing socio-politico-economic circumstances of the times and places. Modern historians are informed by scepticism towards sources, by social anthropology, and by archaeology.

While it's true that interpretation is a large part of historiography, there is little doubt that science has enlightened the bare facts that underpin the writing-up of man's past.

The history of past events is rife with speculation that tends to alter the traditional record of history. It's a curious fact that our moderns want (need) to correct everything we ever knew about the Bible. It's a shell game by which each of these fake scientists make a nice reputation for themselves as mythbusters.

Case in point:

Dr. Ben Carson, Brain Surgeon

“I had an opportunity to have a debate publicly with Don Johanson, the famous archaeologist...who discovered Lucy, the so-called missing link. And he shows this all over the world, you know, this little skull with a protruding mandible and a receding forehead...and I said, you know, I’m a neurosurgeon, and I operate on a lot of people who have deformed skulls and things, and eventually they die and they get buried and years later somebody like you comes along and finds their skull and says they found the missing link. ... Why is there only one of them? Why isn’t there a whole colony of them? How can you dig up this one little thing and then extrapolate?”

Bible revisionists do the same thing. Like dogs worrying a bone, they eat up history with the greatest relish.

[Belindi]

Jesus is unlikely to have said them. The authors, Matthew, Mark, and John said them.

Of course. But it's not unlikely that Jesus said something similar (albeit not in English -- probably in Hebrew, I'm not sure).

The notion that famous prophets are "invented" by their chroniclers is plausible, but not certain. The more famous and influential the prophet, the more likely that his words will be remembered; that the chroniclers will be careful in writing precisely what the prophet said; and that the chronicle will be reasonably accurate. If some sect claims to have the "bones of the Buddha" in its possession, it's easy to dismiss the claims as the fabrications of the credulous. For us non-believers, any bones will do. For the faithful, though, it's vitally important that the bones are actually Buddha's.

Historians argue about whether Boswell invented Samuel Johnson. Perhaps he did. But there's no reason to think that the Gospel writers were less accurate than Boswell. Indeed, because of the prophet's divine mandate, it is likely they are more accurate, or at least more careful at attempting accuracy.

The past of historiography is significantly unlike historiography in the twenty first century, and generally speaking since the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The original writers of the NT were not historiographers such as today's more scientifically- enlightened men who review ancient texts, the purposes of their authors, and the prevailing socio-politico-economic circumstances of the times and places. Modern historians are informed by scepticism towards sources, by social anthropology, and by archaeology.

While it's true that interpretation is a large part of historiography, there is little doubt that science has enlightened the bare facts that underpin the writing-up of man's past.

The history of past events is rife with speculation that tends to alter the traditional record of history. It's a curious fact that our moderns want (need) to correct everything we ever knew about the Bible. It's a shell game by which each of these fake scientists make a nice reputation for themselves as mythbusters.

Case in point:

Dr. Ben Carson, Brain Surgeon

“I had an opportunity to have a debate publicly with Don Johanson, the famous archaeologist...who discovered Lucy, the so-called missing link. And he shows this all over the world, you know, this little skull with a protruding mandible and a receding forehead...and I said, you know, I’m a neurosurgeon, and I operate on a lot of people who have deformed skulls and things, and eventually they die and they get buried and years later somebody like you comes along and finds their skull and says they found the missing link. ... Why is there only one of them? Why isn’t there a whole colony of them? How can you dig up this one little thing and then extrapolate?”

Bible revisionists do the same thing. Like dogs worrying a bone, they eat up history with the greatest relish.

"Rife" "Dogs worrying a bone" "Eat up history withy the greatest relish": you don't even try to be objective so you are not to be taken seriously.

The story of man's past is constantly reviewed by people who are trained in methods of researching it and have sufficient imagination to add to the story. What would you have ? Some grand authority proclaiming that only one story is true for all time?

For full report from Newsweek on who Ben Carson is see for instance

"Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government."

Later, clarifying that Obamacare is indeed worse than Jim Crow, World War II, Vietnam, Iraq and internment camps:

"All of those things are bad, but those do not fundamentally change the United States."

For more about Ban Carson the Republican and Trump official, please read Newsweek and other respectable media.

[Ecurb]

The past of historiography is significantly unlike historiography in the twenty first century, and generally speaking since the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The original writers of the NT were not historiographers such as today's more scientifically- enlightened men who review ancient texts, the purposes of their authors, and the prevailing socio-politico-economic circumstances of the times and places. Modern historians are informed by scepticism towards sources, by social anthropology, and by archaeology.

While it's true that interpretation is a large part of historiography, there is little doubt that science has enlightened the bare facts that underpin the writing-up of man's past.

I agree, but I sort of miss the old-fashioned hagiographies, popular as recently as my childhood. In a way, what really happened is less important than the stories we tell about it. Does it really matter all that much if Jesus (or Lazarus) rose from the dead? Why is historical accuracy the most important aspect of the story? The mythical Alexander the 'Great, or Francis of Assissi, or Jesus is more important (and more resonant) than the factual one. Did Francis really call that wolf his brother and negotiate a settlement with it so that it would stop eating people? I don't know, but I'd hate to see the story consigned to the trash bin by modern historians.

[Charlemagne]

Of course. But it's not unlikely that Jesus said something similar (albeit not in English -- probably in Hebrew, I'm not sure).

The notion that famous prophets are "invented" by their chroniclers is plausible, but not certain. The more famous and influential the prophet, the more likely that his words will be remembered; that the chroniclers will be careful in writing precisely what the prophet said; and that the chronicle will be reasonably accurate. If some sect claims to have the "bones of the Buddha" in its possession, it's easy to dismiss the claims as the fabrications of the credulous. For us non-believers, any bones will do. For the faithful, though, it's vitally important that the bones are actually Buddha's.

Historians argue about whether Boswell invented Samuel Johnson. Perhaps he did. But there's no reason to think that the Gospel writers were less accurate than Boswell. Indeed, because of the prophet's divine mandate, it is likely they are more accurate, or at least more careful at attempting accuracy.

The past of historiography is significantly unlike historiography in the twenty first century, and generally speaking since the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The original writers of the NT were not historiographers such as today's more scientifically- enlightened men who review ancient texts, the purposes of their authors, and the prevailing socio-politico-economic circumstances of the times and places. Modern historians are informed by scepticism towards sources, by social anthropology, and by archaeology.

While it's true that interpretation is a large part of historiography, there is little doubt that science has enlightened the bare facts that underpin the writing-up of man's past.

The history of past events is rife with speculation that tends to alter the traditional record of history. It's a curious fact that our moderns want (need) to correct everything we ever knew about the Bible. It's a shell game by which each of these fake scientists make a nice reputation for themselves as mythbusters.

Case in point:

Dr. Ben Carson, Brain Surgeon

“I had an opportunity to have a debate publicly with Don Johanson, the famous archaeologist...who discovered Lucy, the so-called missing link. And he shows this all over the world, you know, this little skull with a protruding mandible and a receding forehead...and I said, you know, I’m a neurosurgeon, and I operate on a lot of people who have deformed skulls and things, and eventually they die and they get buried and years later somebody like you comes along and finds their skull and says they found the missing link. ... Why is there only one of them? Why isn’t there a whole colony of them? How can you dig up this one little thing and then extrapolate?”

Bible revisionists do the same thing. Like dogs worrying a bone, they eat up history with the greatest relish.

"Rife" "Dogs worrying a bone" "Eat up history withy the greatest relish": you don't even try to be objective so you are not to be taken seriously.

The story of man's past is constantly reviewed by people who are trained in methods of researching it and have sufficient imagination to add to the story. What would you have ? Some grand authority proclaiming that only one story is true for all time?

For full report from Newsweek on who Ben Carson is see for instance

"Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government."

Later, clarifying that Obamacare is indeed worse than Jim Crow, World War II, Vietnam, Iraq and internment camps:

"All of those things are bad, but those do not fundamentally change the United States."

For more about Ban Carson the Republican and Trump official, please read Newsweek and other respectable media.

So what would you have ... revisionist scholars rewriting history to make a reputation for themselves, people who are thousands of years removed from the events and who seem to be able to read more into the events than the people who actually experienced them?

And let's not forget, when it comes to biblical revisionists, you find that most of them are atheists or agnostics, the usual suspects feathering their nest with lies they would like to believe and would like everyone else to believe right along with them.

Excuse my cynicism, but I cannot possibly be more cynical than those who seek to upend biblical history, which sells lots of books I'm sure.

[Belindi]

The past of historiography is significantly unlike historiography in the twenty first century, and generally speaking since the European enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The original writers of the NT were not historiographers such as today's more scientifically- enlightened men who review ancient texts, the purposes of their authors, and the prevailing socio-politico-economic circumstances of the times and places. Modern historians are informed by scepticism towards sources, by social anthropology, and by archaeology.

While it's true that interpretation is a large part of historiography, there is little doubt that science has enlightened the bare facts that underpin the writing-up of man's past.

I agree, but I sort of miss the old-fashioned hagiographies, popular as recently as my childhood. In a way, what really happened is less important than the stories we tell about it. Does it really matter all that much if Jesus (or Lazarus) rose from the dead? Why is historical accuracy the most important aspect of the story? The mythical Alexander the 'Great, or Francis of Assissi, or Jesus is more important (and more resonant) than the factual one. Did Francis really call that wolf his brother and negotiate a settlement with it so that it would stop eating people? I don't know, but I'd hate to see the story consigned to the trash bin by modern historians.

If the old fashioned stories help you through life they are good for you. Myths and allegories can be great and true.

Religion gets a bad reputation when the faithful persist in preaching myths and allegories as if they are historically or scientifically real. I understand that priests earn their livings preaching to the majority who don't interpret myths and allegories. Those of us who do interpret mythical , allegorical, and anthropological content are not catered for in most churches that I know of.

[Ecurb]

If the old fashioned stories help you through life they are good for you. Myths and allegories can be great and true.

Religion gets a bad reputation when the faithful persist in preaching myths and allegories as if they are historically or scientifically real. I understand that priests earn their livings preaching to the majority who don't interpret myths and allegories. Those of us who do interpret mythical , allegorical, and anthropological content are not catered for in most churches that I know of.

Santa Claus is more fun for children when they believe in him. What does it mean to "believe"? I'm not sure -- but I think it often means to suspend disbelief; to enjoy the ride. I get the impression that many of the atheists on this forum are unable to do that. They (like, perhaps, the most orthodox of Fundamentalists) are obsessed with the historicaL truth (or untruth) of the stories. I don't think children who "believe in" Santa Claus think that way. Instead, they accept the story as a story, and are willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story.

The past no longer "exists". What exists are memories, and stories about the past. We all invent a past that conforms to our notions and prejudices. As our prejudices have leaned in on "science", we have tried to make history more scientific. We know Herodotus invented speeches from the past, claiming that the famous speaker probably would have said something like the invented speech. Probably Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did the same. Maybe Boswell did. Perhaps they came close to the truth, though. And even if they didn't, is that so terrible?

G.K. Chesterton (one of my favorite authors -- I just quoted a poem of his in another thread) wrote biographies of Thomas Acquinas abnd Francis of Assissi. He didn't attempt to ferret out the scientific facts about their lives. Instead, he reported on the mythical events, and tried to suss out their meaning and importance. Who cares what the real Thomas or Francis did? The mythical Thomas and Francis are far more important, as is the mythical Jesus.