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

[JM]

Re: 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.

Riiiiiight. : What evidence would you accept?

 

[reznwerks]

Re: 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.

Riiiiiight. : What evidence would you accept?

Just something with a little honesty for starters. Were you able to make any headway on the resurrection discrepancies I listed?

 

[Guest]

Re: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegoric

Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegorical?

The resurrection of Jesus is LITERAL.

If it were not, you might as well burn the Bible.

 

[dad]

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?

Literal. His ressurected body was witnessed by many. Many gave their lives to back up the fact that they were really witnesses.

[quote:21d90]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]?

Since Jesus refered to it Himself, it makes it quite real.

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

Yes. This universe is temporary. Decay and death are the norm here, but not for long.

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

[/quote:21d90]
No. A better understanding is the reality of the bible, which of course is different than a temporary present. Trying to allign the two is impossible.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is heaven real or allegorical? People who believe heaven is allegorical are of the same mold as the Sadducees----and that is why they were sad you see....

 

[dad]

Is heaven real or allegorical? People who believe heaven is allegorical are of the same mold as the Sadducees----and that is why they were sad you see....

Ha. Real. If not, would not the hope of all ages be in vain?

 

[Quasar]

Jesus, a Man of History!

Hi guys,

The evidence for a literal interpretation of Jesus reurrection and existence is preponderous, beginning with documented records kept by eye witnesses, from His time to the millennia that followed.


Jesus - A Man of History -


An accurate statement by F.F. Bruce, professor at Rylands of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Michigan was the following:

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historocity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-myth' theories."

Christian sources for the historicity of Jesus:

Twenty seven different New Testament Documents.

The question is then asked:

"What, then, does a historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism, or literary maneuvering."

Church fathers:

Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, Barnabas, Hermas Tatian, clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc.

Non-biblical sources for Historicity of Jesus:

Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, the Samaritan, Phlegon, the Jewish Talmuds and the Encyclopaedia Britannica (The latter uses 20,000 words to describe the person of Jesus).


One of many non-biblical Sources for the Historicity of Jesus:

CORNELIUS TACITUS (Born A.D.52/54)

A Roman historian, in 112 A.D., governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was governor of Britain A.D. 80-84. Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, available to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormaties. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, represented, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also" (Annals XV. 44)


In a statement from Flavius Josephus, in his Antiquities. xviii,33.

He was a Jewish historian who became a Pharisee at the age of 19; in A.D. 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee. After being captured, he was attached to the Roman headquarters. He says in the following quotation:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

(Early second century)


In another statement by Flavius Josephus, he said this about Jesus half brother, James:

"But the younger Ananius who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of Sadducees, who are severe in judgement above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned." Antiquities XX9:1.


From Suetonius - in A.D. 120.

Another Roman historian, court official under Hadrian, annalist of the Imperial House, said: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Another spelling for Christus), he expelled them from Rome." From 'Lives of the Caesars,' 26.2


In a recorded statement by Plinius Secondus, or Pliny the Younger:

Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (A.D. 112), Pliny was writing the emperor Trajan seeking counsel as to how to treat the Christians.

He explained that he had been killing both men and women, boys and girls. There were so many being put to death that he wondered if he should continue killing anyone who was discovered to be a Christian, or if he should kill only certain ones. He explained that he had made the Christians bow down to the statues of Trajan. He goes on to say that he also "made them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." In the same letter he says of the people who were being tried:

"They affirmed , however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when the sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultry, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up." Epistles X.96.


The next recorded documentation of interest ot us in the historicity of Jesus is one from Tertullian, as follows:

Jurist-theologian of Carthage, in defense of Christianity (A.D. 197) before the Roman authorities in Africa, mentions he exchange between Tiberius and Pontius Pilate:

"Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all the accusers of the Christians" (Apology V.2).


The next one to testify for Christ is Justin Martyr.

About A.D. 150, Justin Martyr, addressed his 'Defense to Christianity' to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, referring him to Pilate's report, which Justin supposed must be preserved in the imperial archives. But the words, "They pierced my hands and my feet," he says, "are a description of the nails that were fixed in His hands and His feet on the cross; and after He was crucified, those who crucified Him cast lots for His garments, and divided them among themselves; and that these things were so, you may learn from the 'Acts' which were recorded under Pontius Pilate." Later he says: "That He performed these miracles you may be easily satisfied from the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Apology 1.48.


And from the Jewish Talmuds:

Tol doth Yeshu. Jesus is referred to as "Ben Pandera."

Babylonian Talmud. (Giving opinion of the Amorian) writes"...and hanged him on the eve of Passover.

Talmud title referring to Jesus: "Ben Pandera (or 'Ben Pantere')" and "Jeshu ben Pandera." Many scholars say "pandera" is a play on words, a travesty on the Greek word for virgin "parthenos," calling him a "son of a virgin." Joseph Klausner, a Jew, says "the illegitimate birth of Jesus was a current idea of the Jews..."

Comments in the Baraila are of great historical value:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth to be stoned in that he hath practiced soecery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a) - "Eve of Passover."


The following excerpts are from the Quran - the Holy Book of the Islamic religion about Jesus Christ. It is to show that they too recognize the historicity of Jesus existence.

In Suras 4:157; 5:19, 75; 9:30 of the Quran it makes the following statements:

1. Jesus is not the Son of God.

2. Jesus did not die for our sins.

3. Jesus was not crucified.

4. Jesus was not divine as well as human.

5. Jesus is ot the Savior.

They are also but a few - of the issues in the Quran that are flat out contradictions to the Christian Bible.


Another interesting recorded document from the historicity of Jesus is Phlegon, a first century historian.

His 'Chronicles' have been lost, but a small fragment of that work, which confirms the darkness upon the earth at the crucifixion, is also mentioned by Julius Africanus. After his (Africanus) remarks about Thallus unreasonable opinion of the darkness, he quotes Phlegon that "during the time of Tiberius Caesar and eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon" 7/11B, sect. 256 f16,p. 1165.

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen in Contra Celsum, Book 2, section 14, 33, 59.

"Philopon (De. opif. mund. ll 21) says: And about this darkness...Phlegon recalls it in the 'Olympiads' (The title of his history). He says that Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ, and no other (eclipse) , it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times...and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar." 4/ll B, sect. 257 f16, c, p. 1165.


Then there is the Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion which was written sometime around A.D.73 - which follows:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgement for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gainfrom executing their wise King? It was just after their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their l;and, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching he had given." 2/114.


One of the first Gentile writers who mentions Christ is Thallus, who wrote in A.D.52. A fragment of what is now left of his writings is found in one of Julius Africanus own writings - who wrote this from Thallus's writings:

"'Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me'" (unreasonable, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).

Thus, from this reference we see the Gospel account of the darkness which fell upon the land during Christ's crucifxion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from those non-believers who witnessed it. 2/113.

Yours in Christ,

Quasar

 

[dad]

Re: Jesus, a Man of History!

Good one. Who can argue with the facts?

 

[undertow]

Re: Jesus, a Man of History!

The question is then asked:

"What, then, does a historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism, or literary maneuvering."

You are saying that the average historian would believe the gospels give an accurate portrait of Jesus? Including all the miracles?

 

[Wandert]

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?

Show me where the Bible says to take something word for word literally. Because that's really all you got for this entire argument. Though I don't think this is yours. A friend of mine had a book (skeptics dictionary, something like that) that rambles on almost exactly like what you posted. I just happened to read it before because I found it amusing.

Most Christians don't view the Bible this way. Most acknowledge they(Gospels) are different. It's four different perspectives telling the same story. And we see it as the same story. We realize there are going to be differences, but that isn't the point. The point is what is being said.

Also, none of these so called "contradictions" have any bearing on Christ. They're all about "who was standing here" and "what did this look like." Which, to us Christians, is nothing. None of these take away from anything important.

Though if you're trying to say the Bible isn't "historical" -shrugs- maybe I can agree with that. I mean, I see it as truth, but if you want to say it doesn't stand up to this "measure" of history mankind has made for itself -- alright, I guess I can see where you're coming from. We are indeed sinful and flawed, so yeah -- overall moot point for me.

I will try give you the most simplistic explanations possible, to show just how little an impact this has on what I believe.

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.

Explanation: people went to the tomb of Christ.

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."

Explanation: some time in the morning.

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.

Explanation: the grave was empty, though suggested there was something more miraculous about it.

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.

Explanation: No contradiction, unless you're counting an absense of something, which hardly seems like an argument.

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!

For this entire thing: Jesus appeared to a lot of people. My faith is not shaken by different ordering of people seeing Christ. See my 1 Corinthian 15 rant for more details.

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!

Explanation: Jesus said go somewhere, they did. I could also argue that they went both places, and were told two different things.

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).

Explanation: Good point to end it on. Paul talked a lot about the mystery of the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 -- just read the whole thing to get what I'm saying, it'll be good for ya. He specifically refers to the resurrection as a "mystery." That these "mysterious" inncidents occur around his death and resurrection is no surprise.

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).

Explanation: You neglect to point out in 1 Corinthians that Paul says "500 at the same time." This, again, ties into the mystery. It's also pushed that not all of these 500 were living, thus implying a spirtual awakening in the afterlife as well as this one.

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

Your call. I mean, I gave you the historical argument, so if that was all you wanted to prove: I am letting your points stand on that, I frankly don't disagree or agree. This was more or less just a response to your "How do you reconcile what is there?" question. So yeah, and . . . yeah.

 

[Veritas]

JM wrote:
Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ literal or allegorical?

Literal

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

It's written that way. And, those writing down the Gospel lived with Jesus and had other eyewitness accounts. I have other reasons, but I'll keep it short for now.

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]?

Not much. I just had a discussion with Barbarian about this. I think Genesis could be literal or allegorical. If you take an allegorical interpretation of Genesis it shouldn't nullify a literal interpretation of the Gospel. A reasonable arguement can be made that Moses is writing about something he was not eyewitness to.

(Personally, I am more prone to believe the 7 day account however)

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

With my personal observation, yes. I've never seen anyone raise from the dead. But I believe it happened (partially based on eyewitness accounts of the Gospel) and believe it will happen again.

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

It depends. When everyone raises from the dead a literal interpretation will be quite suitable for scientific theories.

 

[Veritas]

Wow, I just realized that this is an old topic. Wandert, did you know the previous post to yours was made back in early July!!?

 

[Barbarian]

I have some difficulty seeing how a Christian could think that the resurrection was allegorical. It's not at all written like Genesis, and there's nothing that would make a literal reading of it absurd.

 

[lawhammer]

Christ's Resurrection isn't just the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body.

Christ's body was to know no corruption, but rose again soon after death, when sufficient time had elapsed to leave no doubt as to the reality of His death.

Christ was the first to rise unto life immortal; those raised before Him died again (Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:20).

As the Divine power which raised Christ from the grave was His own power, He rose from the dead by His own power (John 2:19; 10:l7-18).

Since the Resurrection had been promised as the main proof of Christ's Divine mission, it has a greater dogmatic importance than any other fact. "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14).

So, literal.

 

[caseypayne1980]

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.

wikipedia can be edited by anyone that logs on to the page, lol. Science is hot air swallowed into beliefs and opinions and hypothesis. Atheist you say Hypothesis for science, I'll say Faith in God. Same thing, except my next life I won't be burning in hell.

You same well I see many angles of science helping the theory. You see many angles of IDEAS, and THEORIES. Non of it fact.