Resurrection

[Im slow please be patient]

Why do you believe that the resurrection occurred? I can't really understand it.

 

[onlysaved]

By an alternative, I meant a competing theory, such as the Hallucination Theory. I want to understand why this couldn't be a decent explanation of the facts and why people think the resurrection is a better explanation.

Because the resurrection is what factually happened. Again if the explanation were something else that is what would be recorded in the Bible. Either choose to believe it or don't.

 

[Im slow please be patient]

Because the resurrection is what factually happened. Again if the explanation were something else that is what would be recorded in the Bible. Either choose to believe it or don't.

Isn't that just assuming biblical infallibility?

 

[Im slow please be patient]

But you seem to know what you do not believe, and that is the scriptural account, and anything contained in it.

So my questions are:

1. Why is that? and
2. How can you be sure it is not the truth if you have nothing stronger to believe?

Well, I'm still open to believing the scriptural account, but I just can't quite understand why hallucinations aren't a reasonable theory. The resurrection could very well be true; I'm just not fully convinced of it.

 

[Im slow please be patient]

No, I don't think that is at all possible, for the reasons I've already given. Jesus's body could have been produced at any time by anyone who doubted or wanted to prove that he hadn't risen, such as the Jewish authorities. And even when the disciples saw Jesus at his ascension, some of them still doubted. No one expected Jesus to rise again--they didn't expect the Messiah to die in the first place. The lack of a single person ever producing the body of Jesus very strongly suggests that he rose from the dead and no hallucinating was involved.

The gospels are eyewitness accounts, not only of those who either wrote or dictated them, but they were also based on numerous other eyewitnesses. There were a lot of people who could have otherwise come forward and produced the body of Jesus or disputed other things in the gospels. But no one did so, even as Christianity began to quickly spread.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/analyzing-alternative-theories-for-the-resurrection/

I mean, to be honest, the Hallucination Theory doesn't necessarily sound that compelling to me. People who hallucinate don't usually conclude that the person they're hallucinating actually rose from the dead, and I don't really think that people would easily believe someone who claimed this. That's what was preventing me from seeing this theory as good before. I didn't think that people would just believe anything without evidence. But then what confused me is how Paul was able to evangelize to so many people, effectively convincing them that a man whom they had never met rose from the dead, and people believed this. That made me think that people could just believe anything, or else how would he have been able to convert all those people? Then, it it's the case that people can believe anything, why couldn't people be convinced by someone who had a hallucination? I feel like there might be some crucial difference here that I'm missing, but I can't quite figure out what it is.

 

[onlysaved]

Isn't that just assuming biblical infallibility?

Yes, yes I believe that's what we call it.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I mean, to be honest, the Hallucination Theory doesn't necessarily sound that compelling to me. People who hallucinate don't usually conclude that the person they're hallucinating actually rose from the dead, and I don't really think that people would easily believe someone who claimed this. That's what was preventing me from seeing this theory as good before. I didn't think that people would just believe anything without evidence. But then what confused me is how Paul was able to evangelize to so many people, effectively convincing them that a man whom they had never met rose from the dead, and people believed this. That made me think that people could just believe anything, or else how would he have been able to convert all those people? Then, it it's the case that people can believe anything, why couldn't people be convinced by someone who had a hallucination? I feel like there might be some crucial difference here that I'm missing, but I can't quite figure out what it is.

If you read the Biblical account, they were not just convinced by hearsay or word of mouth. Those who were being converted had the Holy Spirit poured out upon them, and supernatural gifts were being made manifest to confirm it.

You see, the one inescapable fact is that Christianity eventually swept the entire Western world, and is still the dominant religion. That would not happen over a delusion. It would only happen if there was something very powerful and convincing going on, and continued to go on for centuries.

 

[Im slow please be patient]

If you read the Biblical account, they were not just convinced by hearsay or word of mouth. Those who were being converted had the Holy Spirit poured out upon them, and supernatural gifts were being made manifest to confirm it.

You see, the one inescapable fact is that Christianity eventually swept the entire Western world, and is still the dominant religion. That would not happen over a delusion. It would only happen if there was something very powerful and convincing going on, and continued to go on for centuries.

I mean, I don't know that I'm too crazy about that argument, because if Islam happened to be the dominant religion, that wouldn't make it true.

 

[Im slow please be patient]

The problem is that it seems to be the case that a charismatic leader can convince people of anything.

 

[hawkman]

The problem is that it seems to be the case that a charismatic leader can convince people of anything.

Paul was effective in his evangelism because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on the people he talked to .

Im slow please be patient , didn't you feel the convicting power of the Holy Spirit before you were born again ? I sure did .

 

[Im slow please be patient]

Paul was effective in his evangelism because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on the people he talked to .

Im slow please be patient , didn't you feel the convicting power of the Holy Spirit before you were born again ? I sure did .

Well, clearly not. I'm not Christian at the moment.

 

[onlysaved]

The problem is that it seems to be the case that a charismatic leader can convince people of anything.

Some people choose to not be convinced of anything beyond their own desires.
Jesus did miraculous things in front of tens of thousands of witnesses throughout His life. Most people were not convinced.
Why? Because people love their own evil and don't want to give it up. The Bible says it this way. "They loved darkness"
The only way to know the truth is to choose to believe it. Now amount of proof will convince you.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I mean, I don't know that I'm too crazy about that argument, because if Islam happened to be the dominant religion, that wouldn't make it true.

There were spiritual forces at work in the spread of Islam as well. Evil ones. My point is that religions such as Christianity which end up dominating the planet do not simply arise from little more than hallucinations. There are very powerful spiritual forces at work. It is highly illogical to think they simply grew out of some sort of humanistic appeal, especially Christianity, which even the New Testament writers acknowledged was foolishness to the humanistic mind.

 

[Free]

I mean, to be honest, the Hallucination Theory doesn't necessarily sound that compelling to me. People who hallucinate don't usually conclude that the person they're hallucinating actually rose from the dead, and I don't really think that people would easily believe someone who claimed this. That's what was preventing me from seeing this theory as good before. I didn't think that people would just believe anything without evidence.

Exactly. I would think that if one, two, or a hundred people thought they had hallucinated that Jesus rose again, that all of them would go to the tomb to verify whether or not it had actually happened.

But then what confused me is how Paul was able to evangelize to so many people, effectively convincing them that a man whom they had never met rose from the dead, and people believed this. That made me think that people could just believe anything, or else how would he have been able to convert all those people? Then, it it's the case that people can believe anything, why couldn't people be convinced by someone who had a hallucination? I feel like there might be some crucial difference here that I'm missing, but I can't quite figure out what it is.

People have been convinced of all sorts of nonsense since humans have been around because they lack critical thinking or don’t bother to check the facts or don’t even know they don’t have all the facts. Many people today believe things to be true simply based on feelings and emotions. But, again, in the case of a hallucination of Jesus, the tomb could be pointed to. If the tomb wasn’t empty, then it truly was a hallucination. But, if it was empty, then he truly rose again.

With Paul, he reasoned from the Scriptures (the OT) that Jesus was the Christ and had risen from the dead, and God displayed miracles through him to prove that what he was teaching was true. He had had an actual encounter with the risen Christ while on the way to Damascus to persecute the believers there. The only thing that can explain the change from persecutor to staunch defender of the faith and writer of most of the NT was a real encounter with the living Christ.

 

[LOOKING]

Why couldn't one or two disciples have hallucinated and then convinced others?

The events do not always coincide with our expectations. Take the example of the Battle of Midway—many small coincidences, like radio malfunctions, catapult malfunctions, etc., turned the tide in USA favor. Had these small events been different, the outcome might have been very different.

I mean that events do not necessarily match our expectations of what is most probable, and the reality is that what we find probable rarely happens as we expect.

Now, we have a historical account that tells us Jesus rose from the dead, and we have current events where people come back to life hours or even days later. Therefore, this account is probably true. But as we choose to believe what the Gospel says, we believe it is true, in the same way that we all believe Julius Caesar existed and did what is written about him. We can't doubt everything written in history books, because that would lead to never-ending doubt...

 

[Who Me]

So why do I work on that assumption for the Bible but not for other religious texts?

No the same rule applies to all documents one studies.

 

[Who Me]

Sorry, I meant to ask why one or two of them couldn't have hallucinated and then convinced the others. Not actually "saw" him.

Two people do not have the same hallucination.

 

[for_his_glory]

Im slow please be patient it is hard to explain the resurrection of Jesus to someone who has no faith as it requires faith as its a supernatural event not provable by scientific means. The resurrection of Jesus is the center of the Christian belief and what this means to those who believe by having faith.

There was a time in my life where my faith in Christ drew very weak as I started to doubt Jesus was even real and as my world was crashing in on me. I decided to give Jesus one last chance to prove Himself to me during Communion. I have a habit of taking the bread and breaking it in half like Jesus did before eating it. When I broke the bread, which represents His body, and ate of the bread I felt the anguish of every lash of the whip that Jesus took while being persecuted for the love He has for us. When I drank of the cup that represented His blood He shed for us, all I could see was a body covered in blood that was unrecognizable that Jesus shed His blood for the remission of our sin, Matthew 26:26-28. After seeing these visions for my self I then knew that Jesus was very real and I have communed with Him ever since.

It takes us to first only believe by faith of the size of a mustard seed that Jesus is who He said He was and what He went through for the remission of our sin in the greatest act of love one will ever know that He gave His life so that we can have eternal life with Him for all eternity. Just pray ( talk to Him) and ask Jesus to reveal Himself to you, but after you pray be still long enough for Him to speak to your heart as He has for many of us. You would not be here on this forum if you were not seeking truth.

Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God

 

[Christ_empowered]

I certainly don't think it's impossible. What I meant by not understanding is that I can't seem to figure out why there couldn't be an alternative explanation for the facts.

Hi ?

Ok so…I actually never had that big of a problem with the supernatural aspect of the Bible. Long story short…

But I found it hard to truly have any meaningful faith in Christ or take a genuine interest in Christianity…

Until after getting truly saved.

I’m not really one to reason people into believing upon Christ. Scripture itself indicates that God gives the increase. And so…

I do hope that you will pray ? and seek God. Jesus Christ is the only person who can save anyone. He’s thankfully the same now yesterday today and tomorrow. Knock and the door shall be opened…

 

[ezrider]

Why do you believe that the resurrection occurred? I can't really understand it.

I would like to take a different tact than what many have posted in this thread.

When thinking upon these thing in my walk, the question I found myself asking was why? Why was the death and resurrection of Jesus necessary? Most would probably tell you his death was for the cleansing of our sins, and while that may be true, it doesn't explain the resurrection. And for clarity here, when I refer to the resurrection, I am talking about risen Jesus appearing with and giving instruction to the apostles for the forty days prior to his Ascension.

In the scripture, Jesus was referred to as the second man Adam. Jesus, who is called the Son of God came to restore what the first man Adam, who was also a Son of God, lost when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and cast from the garden. The temptation of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to become as God, judging good and evil, or as in today's case as the scripture gives us, the knowledge to judge sins.

Jesus in his ministry never sought to magnify nor glorify himself, only the Father. You will find in the gospels how when the crowds began to magnify him, he would slip away across the lake or some place so as to avoid being worshipped.

Adam took the knowledge of good and evil, which we also receive in the the knowledge of the law, the knowledge of sin and death, and with it comes the temptation to judge one another as if we were God. Jesus in his ministry teaches another way, away of forgiveness and love; a way to overcome the burden of the knowledge of sin and death. That through the belief of his death and resurrection that we would also have the knowledge of the hope of life, which we find in grace and mercy when we follow after the Spirit of the Son.

So, back to my question, why was it necessary? Why the need for the death and resurrection?

His death: So that no one would be able to worship him as God in the likeness of the Son of Man. God is Spirit and should be worshipped in the Spirit and in thruth.
His resurrection. Jesus wasn't just sent to speak to the masses, he was also sent to gather disciples to himself and instruct them. Seeing the risen Jesus was critical for their continued instruction.

If you're familiar with the story of doubting Thomas, he doubted the risen Jesus until he poked him in the side. Jesus said you have seen and believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

For me, it does not matter any more if the resurrection was real or not. What is real for me in the here and now, is that the scripture gave to me the knowledge of good and evil, and through the law the knowledge of sin and death; But that knowledge is no longer a burden to me, as I have given the burdens of judgement back to God and am free to follow after the Spirit of Christ, in his image as a son of man with grace, and with the power of the knowledge of life in the Spirit. All because of a simple faith in the story of the death and resurrection.

 

[miamited]

I certainly don't think it's impossible. What I meant by not understanding is that I can't seem to figure out why there couldn't be an alternative explanation for the facts.

Hi Im slow please be patient

Ok. I'm down with that. What alternative explanation do you have that fits all the 'facts' given to us in the Scriptures?

I see that you've latched on to a 'hallucination' phenomenon. You believe that the women who went to the tomb were hallucinating. Then they went to the disciples and a couple of them went out a while after them and suffered the exact same hallucination? That the tomb where Jesus' body had been laid wasn't really empty. That Jesus' body was still there but they were just hallucinating and couldn't see it.