rako
New member
Hello! The apostles, gospels, and New Testament asks us to believe that Jesus bodily resurrected. It is a foundation of Christianity, and anyway I want it to be true because I sense the awful hardships in the world. The world needs salvation.
I believe in God, love Jesus, connect with Him as a figure emotionally, and don't consider the alleged transfigured resurrection impossible. My problem is that I know that just because I want something to be true or a person "feels inside" that it is, doesn't make it real. So it leaves me with "intellectual" or mental uncertainty.
For me normally to mentally think that something is real, I think of the reasons in favor and against it. So I made two lists, pro and con, giving the substantial reasons and the counterarguments made to each side's reasons.
For example, a good reason to believe that the resurrection was real is that all the gospels record the tomb being empty on Sunday, and Matthew records the tomb being guarded. However, theoretically the apostles or a sympathizer could have removed the body on Friday before the guards were posted, or they could have overwhelmed the guards on Saturday night as Peter had already stabbed one on Thursday, or they could have taken the body after the guards left on Sunday night and then retroactively invented a claim that the body was missing on Sunday. Or Matthew could have just made up the story about the guards, who are not mentioned in the other gospels, and the apostles could have taken the body at night when no one was around.
Of course, there are more arguments for the resurrection, like the apostles must have been too scared to take the body because the pharisees were hunting them. And then there are counterarguments to those arguments, like: They still could have paid an anonymous sympathizer to take the body. Or: if they were all so scared, how could John openly attended Jesus' trial and crucifixion, and how could Peter and John openly go to the tomb on Sunday?
An argument against the resurrection would propose that the early Christians were like modern Charismatics, whose supernatural claims mainstream Christians are often skeptical about. Both the early Christians and modern Charismatics have a tendency to claim that the Second Coming would happen in their natural lifespans (eg. within 120 years), to have visions, to experience frequent miraculous "gifts" (eg. weekly or monthly), and to "speak in unknown tongues". This represents a different mindset and mentality than mainstream Christians have today, one much more open to experiencing mental visions and to perceiving them to be physical.
The counterargument in favor of the resurrection is that these depictions of the early Christians as Charismatic are exaggerated, that the apostles were not categorical that the world would end in their natural lifespans, and that the apostles' miracles, "tongues", and visions were all real.
In truth though, whether the apostles' miracles, visions, and tongues were real is the kind of thing that is in question here. We don't have a time machine to check firsthand what they were like. All we know is that the same kinds of miracles and experiences are being claimed, and that modern mainstream Christians are very skeptical about the Charismatics' tongues, visions, mentality etc.
I listed these two categories of reasons here:
Strongest, most direct evidence for the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590472#post4590472
Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590456#post4590456
I believe in God, love Jesus, connect with Him as a figure emotionally, and don't consider the alleged transfigured resurrection impossible. My problem is that I know that just because I want something to be true or a person "feels inside" that it is, doesn't make it real. So it leaves me with "intellectual" or mental uncertainty.
For me normally to mentally think that something is real, I think of the reasons in favor and against it. So I made two lists, pro and con, giving the substantial reasons and the counterarguments made to each side's reasons.
For example, a good reason to believe that the resurrection was real is that all the gospels record the tomb being empty on Sunday, and Matthew records the tomb being guarded. However, theoretically the apostles or a sympathizer could have removed the body on Friday before the guards were posted, or they could have overwhelmed the guards on Saturday night as Peter had already stabbed one on Thursday, or they could have taken the body after the guards left on Sunday night and then retroactively invented a claim that the body was missing on Sunday. Or Matthew could have just made up the story about the guards, who are not mentioned in the other gospels, and the apostles could have taken the body at night when no one was around.
Of course, there are more arguments for the resurrection, like the apostles must have been too scared to take the body because the pharisees were hunting them. And then there are counterarguments to those arguments, like: They still could have paid an anonymous sympathizer to take the body. Or: if they were all so scared, how could John openly attended Jesus' trial and crucifixion, and how could Peter and John openly go to the tomb on Sunday?
An argument against the resurrection would propose that the early Christians were like modern Charismatics, whose supernatural claims mainstream Christians are often skeptical about. Both the early Christians and modern Charismatics have a tendency to claim that the Second Coming would happen in their natural lifespans (eg. within 120 years), to have visions, to experience frequent miraculous "gifts" (eg. weekly or monthly), and to "speak in unknown tongues". This represents a different mindset and mentality than mainstream Christians have today, one much more open to experiencing mental visions and to perceiving them to be physical.
The counterargument in favor of the resurrection is that these depictions of the early Christians as Charismatic are exaggerated, that the apostles were not categorical that the world would end in their natural lifespans, and that the apostles' miracles, "tongues", and visions were all real.
In truth though, whether the apostles' miracles, visions, and tongues were real is the kind of thing that is in question here. We don't have a time machine to check firsthand what they were like. All we know is that the same kinds of miracles and experiences are being claimed, and that modern mainstream Christians are very skeptical about the Charismatics' tongues, visions, mentality etc.
I listed these two categories of reasons here:
Strongest, most direct evidence for the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590472#post4590472
Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590456#post4590456
Last edited: