[_ Old Earth _] Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegorical?

[JM]

Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegorical?

What are your reasons for accepting the literal or allegorical interpretation?

How does that affect your view of creation as presented in Genesis [what rules do you establish for viewing one as allegorical and the other as literal if that's what you believe]?

Is the literal resurrection at odds with our observations of the universe God has given us?

Is the allegorical understanding better suited to scientific theories, is the allegorical resurrection in agreement with these theories?

Peace,

JM

 

[jwu]

[what rules do you establish for viewing one as allegorical and the other as literal if that's what you believe]

Evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence that there wasn't a creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago (unless one buys into omphalism), but there is no evidence that indicates that no literal resurrection happened.

 

[JM]

[what rules do you establish for viewing one as allegorical and the other as literal if that's what you believe]

Evidence.

What evidence would you accept?

There is overwhelming evidence that there wasn't a creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago (unless one buys into omphalism),

Have you consider ALL the evidence?

but there is no evidence that indicates that no literal resurrection happened.

Would an atheist please point out the fallacy in this statement, please.

jm

 

[ArtGuy]

It also has to do with the ability to separate out a literal resurrection from the Bible - you can't. Christianity in its entirety makes no sense if there was not a literal resurrection. It still makes perfect sense if there was not a six-day creation. Thus, the latter can easily be viewed as allegorical, while the former cannot.

And to head off the inevitable question, if it were proven that no literal resurrection happened, in the same way it's been proven that no literal six-day creation happened, I guess I would have to stop being a Christian. But I don't much see that happening. I, in fact, have faith that it won't.

 

[Guest]

If one accepts the supernatural, . . .then these two statements are true.

1. A 6,000 year old earth runs contrary to what we evidence in nature.

2. A literal resurrection of Jesus would be nearly impossible to corroborate, due to lack of evidence. Therefore, the incident may or may not have happened as depicted in the NT. At that time, it is a matter of faith/belief.

 

[ArtGuy]

If one accepts the supernatural, . . .then these two statements are true.

1. A 6,000 year old earth runs contrary to what we evidence in nature.

2. A literal resurrection of Jesus would be nearly impossible to corroborate, due to lack of evidence. Therefore, the incident may or may not have happened as depicted in the NT. At that time, it is a matter of faith/belief.

Bingo.

 

[peace4all]

Hence the reason that sooo many people have faith in one of my favorite little dudes

there is no real evidence of Extra Terrestrials.. But, there is no real evidence of anything else people have faith in. so...

 

[jwu]

[what rules do you establish for viewing one as allegorical and the other as literal if that's what you believe]

Evidence.

What evidence would you accept?

What exactly do you mean? Evidence for a young earth? Things which cannot be reconciled with the earth being old, as well as a young earth model which conclusively explains these but also the things which current young earth models utterly fail to explain, mostly geological formations and things from physics.

[quote:ac28a]There is overwhelming evidence that there wasn't a creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago (unless one buys into omphalism),

Have you consider ALL the evidence?
[/quote:ac28a]Have you?

[quote:ac28a]but there is no evidence that indicates that no literal resurrection happened.

Would an atheist please point out the fallacy in this statement, please.

jm[/quote:ac28a]What fallacy? Please be specific.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegoric

Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegorical?

What are your reasons for accepting the literal or allegorical interpretation?

It would have to be allegorical. The reasons for not accepting a literal crucifixion are these. First how could the most famous trial in history have no record? Jesus was not an obscure figure according to the bible and the Romans kept meticulus records. The four gospels also contradict the events that supposedly occurred including what happened at the resurrection. We have discrepancies at to who, what when and where. All you have to do is go read each gospel account and write down the facts and compare. Lets not forget some of the stories that are told are almost unbelievable to have even occurred. For example does anyone really believe that Roman soldiers who reportedly fell asleep would run to Jewish rabbis for protection? First of all these were not the palace gaurd . These were the best battle hardened soldiers in the world. If anything they would have run to their commanding officer as their training dictated. It is also hardly believable that these soldiers were not executed for falling asleep while on duty. No mention of this is ever made and surly would have been noteworthy. Most suspicous to the claim is the fact that there were sixteen previous entities in mans history that were considered saviors that were crucified as well all predating Jesus and the bible.

 

[Vanaka]

[what rules do you establish for viewing one as allegorical and the other as literal if that's what you believe]

Evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence that there wasn't a creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago (unless one buys into omphalism), but there is no evidence that indicates that no literal resurrection happened.

Funny, but the only evidence you have ever supplied is from BIASED Theries and observations from Evolutionists that have been taught Evolution in school and told it was fact, and Beleive so hard they would'nt think anything else could possibly be true Plus they would probably lose their job if they even considierd anything else....

Oh, and the fact that you get Free publicity from the media, Acually I bet the Media makes some real fine donations to alot of those EVO labs :

 

[Vanaka]

Re: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegoric

Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegorical?

What are your reasons for accepting the literal or allegorical interpretation?

It would have to be allegorical. The reasons for not accepting a literal crucifixion are these. First how could the most famous trial in history have no record? Jesus was not an obscure figure according to the bible and the Romans kept meticulus records. The four gospels also contradict the events that supposedly occurred including what happened at the resurrection. We have discrepancies at to who, what when and where. All you have to do is go read each gospel account and write down the facts and compare. Lets not forget some of the stories that are told are almost unbelievable to have even occurred. For example does anyone really believe that Roman soldiers who reportedly fell asleep would run to Jewish rabbis for protection? First of all these were not the palace gaurd . These were the best battle hardened soldiers in the world. If anything they would have run to their commanding officer as their training dictated. It is also hardly believable that these soldiers were not executed for falling asleep while on duty. No mention of this is ever made and surly would have been noteworthy. Most suspicous to the claim is the fact that there were sixteen previous entities in mans history that were considered saviors that were crucified as well all predating Jesus and the bible.

Typical of you Reznwerks, saying how are there no Records is like saying how the Greatest Civilization (in that period of time) was destroyed, or saying "how could the Great library of Alexander the Great be destroyed?"

and, the only poeple who might be Remotely interested in preserving the document would be the christians, and why should they preserve it when they ALREADY have the Bible, But I guess the Bible doesent count to you, like everything else that does'nt Preach athiesim.

and the four gospels Countradicting the the events...yeah right, is that somthing you pulled out of the Skeptics Bible? if you wanna play that card I'm sure I can find a link to the Skeptics Bible Corrected and explained.


Oh and the soldiers probably went to the Rabbi because their commander would probably kill them himself...or have them killed...and I dont think the Bible ever Says what happens to the soldiers..., but anyway they were probably just a couple rookies doing the Graveyard shift in a land that had been Roman land for...quite a few years, besides, at this point in time, the Roman empire was only a few Generations from their fall, there was'nt a whole lot of fighting then.

 

[saltiness]

but there is no evidence that indicates that no literal resurrection happened.

Would an atheist please point out the fallacy in this statement, please.

jm

Saying there's no evidence for something not existing or happening is useless. I can say there is no evidence for an invisible pink unicorn not existing because there isn't. Does that make my belief valid? Or sane? You're also using a double negative here which is redundant so your quote should read, "there is evidence that indicates [a] literal resurrection happened." In which case I ask for this evidence if it is anything other than the bible.

 

[saltiness]

[what rules do you establish for viewing one as allegorical and the other as literal if that's what you believe]

Evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence that there wasn't a creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago (unless one buys into omphalism), but there is no evidence that indicates that no literal resurrection happened.

Funny, but the only evidence you have ever supplied is from BIASED Theries and observations from Evolutionists that have been taught Evolution in school and told it was fact, and Beleive so hard they would'nt think anything else could possibly be true Plus they would probably lose their job if they even considierd anything else....

Oh, and the fact that you get Free publicity from the media, Acually I bet the Media makes some real fine donations to alot of those EVO labs :

The evidence against creation ex nihilo stems not particularly from Evolutionary theory, but from all branches of science. Take, for instance the fact that our Milky Way galaxy is 80,000 to 100,000 light years in diameter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way (there are thousands of places to cite this from but wikipedia is easiest). It would not be possible for us to see stars further than 6,000 light-years away if our galaxy were created 6,000 years ago. This is just one of millions of facts which demonstrate the universe to have existed far longer than the Bible tells us.

On a side note, I really struggle to find where this mentallity comes from where people such as you imagine a huge conspiracy of scientists and the media bent on promoting Evolution and other facts of science purely because they want to not because it's the truth. Here's an interesting little fact about how science works - it is always searching for the best answer to a given problem based on all the evidence. If there were any evidence whatsoever for the world being 6,000 years old that could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, any sciencist would be absolutely ectastic to be the one to discover it and bring forth the resulting theory. Think of the fame involved if you were to bring irrefutable evidence that the Christian God created the world 6,000 years ago. You would be an instant celebrity everywhere and a savior to your religion. Why has this not happened? Science seeks only truth regardless of what the ultimate answer is. There is no dogma here, if there were real evidence for Creation, it would replace all theories of science pertaining to it.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegoric

[

Typical of you Reznwerks, saying how are there no Records is like saying how the Greatest Civilization (in that period of time) was destroyed, or saying "how could the Great library of Alexander the Great be destroyed?"
Outside the bible you have not one shred of evidence to make your claim. In order for something to be historical it needs more than one source and sources that are credible. The bible is obviously a biased source since it is written by Christians.Many historians were alive at the time of the supposed existance of Jesus and no one wrote anything down. The works of Josephus are considered a forgery for many good reasons and that was your best shot at authenticity. If you can find any "first hand" evidence for your claims please present them. Check the Brittanica and see what it uses for reference. It uses the bible only. Then check on Hercules and the references there are just as valid. If there were anything better for documentation don't you think it would have been used?

and, the only poeple who might be Remotely interested in preserving the document would be the christians, and why should they preserve it when they ALREADY have the Bible, But I guess the Bible doesent count to you, like everything else that does'nt Preach athiesim.
Where did you get your info? They didn't have the bible outside the O/T back then. The bible as we know it didn't come into play until around 300 years after the supposed events. Do some homework.

and the four gospels Countradicting the the events...yeah right, is that somthing you pulled out of the Skeptics Bible? if you wanna play that card I'm sure I can find a link to the Skeptics Bible Corrected and explained.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want the truth read the gospels , gather facts as to who , what when and where and then compare what you have found. You could not take this to court and make a case.


Oh and the soldiers probably went to the Rabbi because their commander would probably kill them himself...or have them killed...and I dont think the Bible ever Says what happens to the soldiers...,
Thats what Matthew would have us believe.

but anyway they were probably just a couple rookies doing the Graveyard shift in a land that had been Roman land for...quite a few years, besides, at this point in time, the Roman empire was only a few Generations from their fall, there was'nt a whole lot of fighting then.
Well in the words of the great Christian apologist Josh McDowell he said that their were anywhere from 10 to 30 guards. As I said this wasn't the palace guard. According to the bible the Jews were aware of the story that Jesus would rise again. So no "rookies" were used. Getting back to whether this story is true or not I will point out agains why it probably did not happen. First of all battle hardened soldiers would not run to Jewish rabbis for help. They would not have run at all. Matthew tells us that the Jewish rabbis told the soldiers to use the excuse that the body was stolen while they were asleep. Here is why that didn't happen.
IF they had been asleep, they would never have admitted it, for to admit it would be certain death.
.

¨ IF they were asleep, then they had their eyes closed. And IF they had their eyes closed, then they could not see. And IF they could not see, then they could not see the body being carried out. And IF they could not see the body being carried out, then they also could not see WHO was doing the carrying.

¨ IF they really DID see people stealing the body out of the tomb, then they had their eyes open. And IF their eyes were really open, they must have only been pretending to be asleep. And IF they were pretending to be asleep while watching all this going on, and did not stop it, then they were totally negligent in their guard duty, and would have been executed by their commanders.
Here are more problems with the story. If the Romans did in fact run to the Rabbis and tell them the body was missing how would the Rabbis have responded? How could the Jewish counsel recieve this info as cridible? The Sanhedrists would have accused the Romans themselves of sleeping and ALLOWED the body to be stolen and in turn they would have been executed for this. There is absolutely nothing believable about the story. All the characters involved are asked to behave differently given the circumstances. Perhaps Matthew was trying to paint the Romans in poor light because of the cowardice shown by the apostles themselves since it was they who ran away and tried to save their skins.

 

[jwu]

but there is no evidence that indicates that no literal resurrection happened.

Would an atheist please point out the fallacy in this statement, please.

jm

Saying there's no evidence for something not existing or happening is useless. I can say there is no evidence for an invisible pink unicorn not existing because there isn't. Does that make my belief valid? Or sane? You're also using a double negative here which is redundant so your quote should read, "there is evidence that indicates [a] literal resurrection happened." In which case I ask for this evidence if it is anything other than the bible.

Straw man. I did not in any way argue that absence of falsification equals positive evidence.

 

[English]

Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegorical?

What are your reasons for accepting the literal or allegorical interpretation?

How does that affect your view of creation as presented in Genesis [what rules do you establish for viewing one as allegorical and the other as literal if that's what you believe]?

Is the literal resurrection at odds with our observations of the universe God has given us?

Is the allegorical understanding better suited to scientific theories, is the allegorical resurrection in agreement with these theories?

Peace,

JM

1) Literal

2) Testimony of those who saw him die and then later reported seeing him alive.

They thought that Jesus rose from the dead and that's what they went around telling everyone. They were totally and completely convinced of it.

3)My view of creation in genesis. Do I see as one allegorical and one literal? Well the book of Genesis exists and the story was told and written down. God who raised Jesus from the dead is God who made the world and made man to live in it. If the resurrection is true then so also is Genesis. What basis does any one have for contradicting it?

The bible does not in fact teach anything at all about the age of the universe. There is nothing at all in scripture not one word that says the earth is X number of years old.

Some people teach that by counting the ages of the men descending from Adam that this gives and indication of the age of the earth.

That is also a false logic! If you count back the ages of the men from Adam what you have got is the number of years from Adam to his last descendent but you have not calculated the age of the earth.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegoric

[

Typical of you Reznwerks, saying how are there no Records is like saying how the Greatest Civilization (in that period of time) was destroyed, or saying "how could the Great library of Alexander the Great be destroyed?"
What records do you have of the time in question outside the bible?

and, the only poeple who might be Remotely interested in preserving the document would be the christians, and why should they preserve it when they ALREADY have the Bible, But I guess the Bible doesent count to you, like everything else that does'nt Preach athiesim.
They did not have the bible as you suggest. They had the O/T and that was all. Secondly the common man did not have access to this either. The O/T was relegated to be communicated by the Rabbis etc.

and the four gospels Countradicting the the events...yeah right, is that somthing you pulled out of the Skeptics Bible? if you wanna play that card I'm sure I can find a link to the Skeptics Bible Corrected and explained.
The gospels contradict each other in many parts and many parts are copied word for word.


Oh and the soldiers probably went to the Rabbi because their commander would probably kill them himself...or have them killed...and I dont think the Bible ever Says what happens to the soldiers..., but anyway they were probably just a couple rookies doing the Graveyard shift in a land that had been Roman land for...quite a few years, besides, at this point in time, the Roman empire was only a few Generations from their fall, there was'nt a whole lot of fighting then.
Really ? Considering the high profile of the supposed trial do you think "rookies" would have been posted as gaurds. Check on my previous posts as to whether the entire episode is likely to have occurred. Considering the life expectancy of around 45 years your explanation of the Roman empire being deposed in a few generations doesen't hold water. You want us to assume the Roman army knew what was coming years down the road and just started to stand down. This is ludicrus. The soldiers at the time were still considered the best in the world.Training is training and disipline is disipline the soldiers wouldn't have run to rabbies for protection no matter what you consider their battle worthiness was.The bottom line is that admitting to have fallen asleep would have resulted in death immediately and admitting to seeing Jesus body being removed would have have p/o the rabbies for the gaurds did not do their duty by stopping it. You really need to rehash my other posts and think about it.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegoric

[
and the four gospels Countradicting the the events...yeah right, is that somthing you pulled out of the Skeptics Bible? if you wanna play that card I'm sure I can find a link to the Skeptics Bible Corrected and explained.

quote]
Actually it was pulled from the bible itself. How do you reconcile what is there? Can you take this testimony to court and get a conviction?
Examiner to witness: How many women went to the tomb of Jesus?
First witness:
Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb;
Second witness:

Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome);
Third witness:

Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James);
Fourth witness:
John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.
What time of day was it when the events happened?
Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit,
John 20:1 states "it was still dark."
Tell the court what happened when you got there:
Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it";
Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone);
Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing";
John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
Did anyone say anything while you were there?

Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 say the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him"
(Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 didn't feel it important enough to remember any such conversation.
Who saw Jesus first?Matthew 28:9 says Mary Magdaline and the other Mary.
Mary Magdalene only in Mark 16:9 claims Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims?
Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what the found at the tomb.
Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. John and Luke failed to report any appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.

Which disciples went to the tomb:
Peter alone (Luke 24:12)
Peter and John (John 20:2-8) Did the disiples believe these reports from the woman or women?
Matthew 28:16 says yes
Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 says no

To whom did Jesus appear first?
All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)
Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)
To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24) To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)
Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!

In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!

When and where did Jesus ascend to heaven?
Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19).
Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51).
John says Jesus appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14).
According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).

In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven
Mark, contradicts this who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).

Based on the evidence do I have a motion to dismiss?

 

[JM]

Start here: http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm

Carm answers your objections.

 

[reznwerks]

no

Start here: http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm

Carm answers your objections.

I went to your site and looked at the first so called answer to objections which dealt with the geneology. It tried to explain the geneology through Mary and claimed that everyone knew it was through Mary. I have already shown that was bogus reasoning for a number of good reasons. Further reading was not required. Try to resolve the discrepancies listed just before your posting for starters.