• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's discuss the Resurrection of Jesus

Resurrection

  • The Resurrection IS the most likely theory on why Christianity is the biggest religion

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • The Resurrection IS NOT the most likely theory on why Christianity is the biggest religion

    Votes: 9 75.0%

  • Total voters
    12

TypicalRussian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
10,226
Reaction score
589
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?
 

Yasureoktoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
413
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's a bronze age religion, It's not real, get over it.
 

NotreDame

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,377
Reaction score
565
Location
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?
William Lane Craig has made a fair argument for it.




He also has a very good book on the subject. “Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?”

The massive boom by Licona, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Histographical Approach.”
 

TypicalRussian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
10,226
Reaction score
589
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
William Lane Craig has made a fair argument for it.




He also has a very good book on the subject. “Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?”

The massive boom by Licona, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Histographical Approach.”
Yes william lane craig is good, it is really fascinating how there are no eyewitnesses yet still so much evidence
 

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
1,848
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?
Wait, it spread because the "resurrection is fact"? How would the people to whom it spread know that it was a fact?
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,571
Reaction score
2,111
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Let's put up an alternative theory which is just as credible as jesus resurrection.

http://www.counter-propaganda.com/?...=The owner of the tomb,eaten the body as well.

Didn’t the scene of the ‘Last supper’ imply an order to eat up Jesus’ body after his death?
The so-called ‘Last supper’, which took place immediately before the Christ’s arrest and crucifixion, is described in several places of the New Testament. During it, Jesus Christ ordered his disciples to eat bread and to drink wine and suggested that these were his body and blood.

The Eucharist has its origins in the ‘Last supper’; however, it looks as if Jesus Christ had in his mind his own true flesh and blood when he spoke about the bread and wine during the ‘Last supper’.

The following thoughts of Jesus Christ are cited in the Gospel according to John:
‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life <…> For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. <…> This is the bread that came down from heaven…’ (John, 6, 53-58)

Christian theologians usually interpret this as a metaphor. Such an interpretation corresponds best with the interests of Christianity, but the words by no means sound metaphorically in the original text of the Gospel.

If Jesus Christ perceived his body and blood as a meal that had to be eaten, then it seems that the scene of the ‘Last supper’ – is nothing but the last reminder to the followers about their obligation to eat up their teacher’s body.

It is quite probable that Jesus Christ was eaten by his followers
As we can infer from the biblical texts, the tomb where Christ’s body was stored was not guarded. True, the Gospel according to Matthew claims that in order to prevent the corpse of Jesus Christ from being stolen from the tomb, the next day after the crucifixion chief Jewish priests and Pharisees assembled in front of Pilate and asked him to post a guard to secure the tomb, and when Pilot told them, – ‘You have a guard…’ – they put (their?) guards at the tomb and sealed the stone. (Matthew, 27, 62-66)

This episode does not seem to be a testimony by some Christ’s contemporary, but it rather looks as a fake, which was grafted into the Gospel by a person who was not familiar with the Jewish religion and culture, because the events took place during the Sabbath, and any work (sealing the tomb and possibly posting the guard or even standing on guard) was then a serious crime against the Jewish religion.

Even the mother of the prophet and his (apparently) girlfriend or wife Mary Magdalene did not dare even to make preparations for the pending burial ceremony – there is little doubt that that nobody guarded the tomb until the Saturday sunset.

Even on the Sunday morning when the two Maries came to the tomb, they found only one man, who tried to convince them that Jesus Christ had resurrected (or two men according to Luke and John). So, most probably none of Christ’s enemies had guarded the tomb at all.

The owner of the tomb, Joseph from Arimathea, apparently was Christ’s disciple, so in fact the followers of the Christian prophet could have done with his corpse whatever they wanted, and they could have eaten the body as well.

If the body of Jesus Christ had actually disappeared during the cannibalistic party of his disciples, it is quite natural that they preserved their secret. The disclosure of such secret would not only have discredited the then still emerging Christianity, but also Jews, who did not tolerate cannibalism, would have executed all the participants of the last feast. Anyway, even if somebody of the initiated had blurted it out, nobody believed him.
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
1,761
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Didn't happen.
 

Logician Man

Into Mischief
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
21,704
Reaction score
6,907
Location
On the Threshold of a Dream
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?
This guy thinks you need to 'prove' the resurrection story is indeed 'fact.'
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
2,781
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?

Yes!

In a matter of just a few days - the apostles were all transformed from being so fearful that they went into hiding to suddenly becoming so full of courage that persecution didn't stop them from preaching. They were suddenly willing to die for Christ!
That collective confidence came from somewhere!

And there were many witnesses, about 500 people on various occasions. Imagine all those witnesses telling others of what they saw!

I think, the brothers of Christ became disciples only after the Resurrection. What changed their minds?
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
2,781
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wait, it spread because the "resurrection is fact"? How would the people to whom it spread know that it was a fact?


How do you think news travel in those days? Thru the CNN?

If a father comes home and excitedly tells of what he witnessed - wouldn't his family believe him?
What more when news spread that he wasn't the only one who saw it!
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
2,781
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:rolleyes:

It is known what happened to the body of Christ - look at the title of the topic!

Your theory of cannibalism is irrational. Your article is only basing it on a metaphor ritual that commemorates the sacrifice of Jesus.
Lol. Your article claim something WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES WHATSOEVER - and yet, here we have 500 or so that witnessed the risen Christ!

That's what's so absurd.
You're willing to entertain a ridiculous notion without any witness or proof of any kind, and yet you close your mind to what is more
logically plausible!
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,636
Reaction score
22,220
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Can anyone recommend a good DP type forum (small number of users who all are used to each other) where these kinds of topics are discussed?

Preferably one that is nonpolitical?
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
2,781
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Such as???

Please provide a short and concise list of the top 5 most obvious pieces of “evidence”.
I give you a whole lot more than just 5.

500 witnesses.

Plus more......

501. Sudden transformation of the apostles (from hiding fearful disciples to suddenly gungho, without any fear!)

502. Explosion of Christianity in the region - AND eventually, BEYOND!

503. Willing martyrs.

504. LOGIC!
 

HK.227

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
347
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's a bronze age religion, It's not real, get over it.
How dare you blaspheme thus? Thou shalt surely burn in the fires of heck.
Roman Levantine Period! Roman Levantine Period, dammit, not Bronze Age!
 

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
1,848
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent


How do you think news travel in those days? Thru the CNN?

If a father comes home and excitedly tells of what he witnessed - wouldn't his family believe him?
What more when news spread that he wasn't the only one who saw it!
By your standard, Islam would also have to be true. Why aren't you a Muslim. God changed his mind once, why not twice?
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
16,441
Reaction score
7,349
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?
I agree with the part of no eyewitnesses and no proof, the rest is fantasy in my opinion.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,571
Reaction score
2,111
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
:rolleyes:

It is known what happened to the body of Christ - look at the title of the topic!

Your theory of cannibalism is irrational. Your article is only basing it on a metaphor ritual that commemorates the sacrifice of Jesus.
Lol. Your article claim something WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES WHATSOEVER - and yet, here we have 500 or so that witnessed the risen Christ!

That's what's so absurd.
You're willing to entertain a ridiculous notion without any witness or proof of any kind, and yet you close your mind to what is more
logically plausible!
There is no proof of what happened to jesus's body assuming the myth actually existed.
All you have is a book of fairy tales about events that never actually happened telling you what happened.

The theory of cannibalism is even more plausible than an actual dead person coming back to life as there is far more evidence for cannibalism than there is for ressurrection.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,571
Reaction score
2,111
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We seem to have a difference of opinion here.
From tosca1:

And there were many witnesses, about 500 people on various occasions. Imagine all those witnesses telling others of what they saw!

And then from typical russian:
Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection,

One of these two must be a lie. Can you tell which one is telling the lie?

And looking at tosca1's usual nonsense we see that he seems to believe that there were " various occasions. " Could it be in tosca's imagination that the crucifixion happened a few times in a few places
 

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
1,848
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Tosca1 of course. The real question for me is what were they actually viewing on various occasions. Was the crucifixion staged a few times in various places?
If anyone actually saw anything (which I doubt), my vote would be that it was the ultimate twin prank.
 
Top Bottom