Questioning The Resurrection

[kallipolis]

There was great surprise among the apostles that Jesus did in deed rise from the dead, into new life there being no anticipation that such an event would occur when appreciating that all of the apostles, but John fled in terror from Jerusalem for fear of facing crucifixion with Simon Peter even denying his friendship with Jesus, on three occasions when identified as a Jesus follower.

Yet, the surprise demonstrated by the apostles is relevant for they too had to be convinced of Jesus' resurrection, as evidenced by Thomas refusing to believe that the person standing in front of him was the same Jesus who had some three days earlier been crucified to death and buried.

Jesus invited Thomas to place his fingers in to his hands, and side enabling Thomas to reply: "My Lord, and my God" ~John 20:28 leading us to understand that Thomas was convinced that Jesus had risen into new life only after his examination of Jesus' wounds.

The apostles were not a gullible band of friends who accepted the resurrection of Jesus, at face value this despite Jesus' earlier statements:

"And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.~Luke 9:22

and

Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; 33 they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.” The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about. ~Luke 18:31-34

I can appreciate that the apostles should not have been surprised and yet, their surprise that Jesus had resurrected into new life was the necessary catalyst of their rational response to test, per Thomas' examination the corporeal reality of Jesus standing before them.

That Jesus also ate fish with his apostles, and walked some distance on the road to Emmaus with two of his friends tells us that Jesus went out of his way to demonstrate to his bereaved apostles that he had resurrected from death into new life.

Paul of Tarsus' numinous experience of the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus was different from that of the apostles yet, an eye opening experience for Paul to understand that Jesus was alive in new life, inspiring Paul to cease being a persecutor of The Nazarenes and become their most fervent, even zealous evangelist.

Ahead is the apostles' empowerment through the The Spirit. Beyond that is the mission to proclaim to the world what they have experienced and understood. Jesus had ministered to them to prepare them for this time.

I also proclaim the good news that Jesus died, was buried and resurrected into new life.

 

[kevin23]

I totally agree, thanks for posting.

 

[csb999]

so this is a religion based on someone who was not the result of his parents having sex and who never really died , unlike every other human and most living things . The usual symbol of this religion is the cross , an ancient method of torture and execution . One might think Christianity has a problem with flesh .

 

[kallipolis]

so this is a religion based on someone who was not the result of his parents having sex and who never really died , unlike every other human and most living things . The usual symbol of this religion is the cross , an ancient method of torture and execution . One might think Christianity has a problem with flesh .

Atheists (if they really exist) are very serious about their disbelief aren't they?

 

[palbert]

Atheists (if they really exist) are very serious about their disbelief aren't they?

Yes, and exist we do. But I do not denigrate you or your faith (nor any other for that matter), for I have grown reading your articles to respect your scholarship. But as we know that 60 Translators are responsible for King James version, we must ask what mysteries and revelations lie unknown, untold and unappreciaited behind the early King James Version (and its linguist sleight of hand to re-enforce the monarchy), and away from the shores of James' little out-of-the-mainstream England, possibly undisturbed to this day. (A little Indiana Jones that, but valid.)

I wish you peace in your way as I have it in mine:
"Sleep after toil,
Port after stormy seas,
Ease after war,
Death after life does greatly please."
(Edmund Spenser)

 

[FirmaFan]

Atheists (if they really exist) are very serious about their disbelief aren't they?

As serious as you are about your disbelief in every single god...with just one exception.

 

[FirmaFan]

Atheists (if they really exist) are very serious about their disbelief aren't they?

Oh, and by the way, atheists most certainly exist. Here's a picture of a bunch together in one room:

 

[kallipolis]

Oh, and by the way, atheists most certainly exist. Here's a picture of a bunch together in one room:

Where's your proof that those babes are practising atheists?

 

[kallipolis]

But as we know that 60 Translators are responsible for King James version, we must ask what mysteries and revelations lie unknown, untold and unappreciaited behind the early King James Version[/B].

The pedant personality will always discover something of interest when delving into the mind boggling intrigues of scholars translating from Greek, and ancient Hebrew into the English language.

I am not, and have never been a pedant; despite being a self confessed queer!

Although fluent in modern Greek, and have some familiarity with modern Hebrew I know little, or nothing of the allegations that you refer too despite appreciating that conspiracy theories are very much in fashion among those with an axe to grind.

 

[Penguyen]

Just a note, you can't be a "practicing atheist" because atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack thereof. There's no universal organization with set dogma, nor are there weekly meetings where someone goes up to a pulpit to discuss their disbelief in god(s) followed by a mixer afterwords with juice and cookies.

It's akin to saying bald is a hair color, or the power switch of a television is a channel.

 

[zoltanspawn]

A non-practicing atheist would simply meet supernatural claims silently.

A practicing atheist responds. Common practices of atheists include discussion, publishing, button and sticker making, attending meetings and lectures, wearing t-shirts and sharing cartoons, so on and so forth. Juice and cookies are welcome.

 

[kallipolis]

Just a note, you can't be a "practicing atheist" because atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack thereof. There's no universal organization with set dogma, nor are there weekly meetings where someone goes up to a pulpit to discuss their disbelief in god(s) followed by a mixer afterwords with juice and cookies.

It's akin to saying bald is a hair color, or the power switch of a television is a channel.

Adding to Zoltan's observations it is very clear from the many posts from practising atheists which appear on these forums that their aptitude for militant campaigning indicates that they are as organised as any religious community in evangelising on behalf of their belief, in non belief in God.

Surely you can't have missed the anti Christian cartoon thread in the week leading up to Easter when the children poured out their predictable venom with the enthusiasm normally reserved for the most zealous practitioner of atheistic beliefs.

I'd go as far as saying that the atheist credo is every bit as bombastic as the credo of those religious zealots who knock on our front door selling their version of religious belief.

 

[FirmaFan]

Where's your proof that those babes are practising atheists?

Everyone is born a non-believer. It is only through various methods of indoctrination does one become a believer. Whether you admit it or not, even you at one point did not believe in your religion - you had no concept of it. You had to be told of it, and taught to believe it. Same with Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. Only difference is that, unlike the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause, people will maintain the myth even when questioned by an inquisitive child.

When you start with a blank slate like a child's mind, you can conceivably convince them of just about anything. You could take each child, teach each of them a different religion, and each could come out as convinced of their belief as you are of yours. That is why there are thousands of different gods, and, even within just christianity, thousands of different denominations. But here's the thing about the truth of a subject - those seeking it form a convergence, information slowly becomes narrowed towards a single point of consensus. But religion has always been divergent - different beliefs, different ideologies, some stay, some go, some are forgotten, some are simply not believed anymore - it's an ever branching tree where no consensus can be reached because the practice is not a path to truth, for when you teach that faith, without reason or even against reason, is the most virtuous of all attributes, how can one ever expect to uncover the real truth to those beliefs?

 

[kallipolis]

Everyone is born a non-believer.

Please cite credible research to support your assertion.

Or, should I presume this another of your personal opinions, posing as fact?

 

[Telstra]

Please cite credible research to support your assertion.

Or, should I presume this another of your personal opinions, posing as fact?

Its common sense.
Belief is learnt process and not born with.

 

[kallipolis]

Its common sense.
Belief is learnt process and not born with.

Not a few scientists believe that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behaviour.

Our developing understanding of the human genome has revealed that both sides are partly correct in their conclusions. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic dispositions and moulds them as we learn and mature.

Did some one teach you to be homosexual?

 

[Telstra]

Not a few scientists believe that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behaviour.

Our developing understanding of the human genome has revealed that both sides are partly correct in their conclusions. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic dispositions and moulds them as we learn and mature.

Did some one teach you to be homosexual?

homosexuality = to believe system ?

 

[kallipolis]

homosexuality = to believe system ?

Did you choose your sexual orientation, or did some one teach you?

Or, is your sexual orientation just a naturally occurring feature of who you are?

 

[Telstra]

1/ Did you choose your sexual orientation, or 2/ did some one teach you?

Or, 3/ is your sexual orientation just a naturally occurring feature of who you are?

1/ No
2/ No one teach you how to be sexually attracted to someone
3/ Yes

 

[FirmaFan]

Not a few scientists believe that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behaviour.

Our developing understanding of the human genome has revealed that both sides are partly correct in their conclusions. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic dispositions and moulds them as we learn and mature.

I will agree that people can both be predisposed to certain things and can be taught certain things, with religious belief not being an exception of this. However, the specific religious belief is always acquired, there is no innate religious doctrine that is present at birth. Hence, we are all born non-believers.