Jesus's death was faked - Page 2

Jesus was God, but also human. Trust me, I've tried the whole "Pain is just neurons firing and doesn't matter" thing myself, but just because you know it doesn't matter doesn't make it hurt less. And once in enough pain, it becomes hard to think about what pain is. It is as C.S. Lewis once said, "If only this toothache would go away, I could write another chapter about pain. Knowing what pain is and feeling it are entirely different things.

As far as the ressurection being made up goes, the Gospels are actually the most accurately produced ancient documents known, with our earliest transcripts coming from within <70 years of the original document. This leaves some of the witnesses still alive at the time, and history and experience shows that it takes at least 2 generations before something can begin to become a historically unacurate legend. There is a fake account, The Gospel of either Thomas or Phillip, I can't remember which, that shows this. If you want a fake account, read that. The other 4 are astoundingly accurate, even now. It is estimated that 99.8% of them are still word for word. The Apostle Paul practically begs people to ask one of the 500 witnesses who saw the Ascension.

As for the death of Jesus being faked, there are somewhere around 10 non-Christian historians, around during Jesus lifetime, who refer to the death of Jesus, and some to the Christians belief in his resurection. Luke, probably the most accurate gospel, as Luke was a doctor, says "While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them 'Peace be with you.' They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them 'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I do.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet." (Luke 24 36-40) He went on to eat with them, something a spirit cannot do.

Jesus allowed Himself to be killed. His death was not faked, it was allowed. How you can say the bodily Resurection was a myth created centuries later is beyond me, as obviously Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, Thomas, Paul, and thousands of others believed by Pentacost (read the first few chapters of Acts).

As a side note, as etherealmeekie already said, you seem to be convinced that you are already correct and we have to make the death and resurection fit your conception of God and the afterlife. Some of your ideas seem to be Buddhist, which makes me wonder why you care about God, as Buddhists believe there is no God. Please explain, and please consider that you may be the one who is wrong. You asked what happened, and when you recive answers, you refuse them because they don't fit what you want to believe. If you want an answer to make you happy, tell us so we can find someone with an open mind to convince. If you want Truth, stop refusing to accept it!

godisnotanidea : Don't worry I am not in the search for the 'truth' or an answer. There is no truth. Only individual perception. It would be interesting if you had completely read my 2nd last post. If you had then you would have noticed that your post contradicts my post and that you haven't provided any credible new material that can provocate and back up your point of view. The whole point of writing this thread was to question and challenge peoples' current views on 'resurrection' and that 'jesus faked his death'.

Here's two books and an author to check out for a more well presented case: Unshakable Foundations by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, and pretty much any non-fiction book by C.S. Lewis. That's where I get most of my views from, so they can probably present their views much better than I can. I'll do my best, however.

And Summit, try to keep your posts shorter. Most people don't have the patince to read >2 screen long posts, so you are probably scaring away spme people with good ideas wh don't want to read your posts.

Challenge away Summit. It makes no difference. The Christian faith is based on a personal relationship between man and God. The resurrection is true not because of historical documentation but because I know the Man who died and is no longer dead.

quote:

---

The resurrection is true not because of historical documentation but because I know the Man who died and is no longer dead.

---

Yet it seems rather ironic that your knowledge of 'Jesus' is through historical documentation.

I appreciate your opinion's guys.

quote:

---

Yet it seems rather ironic that your knowledge of 'Jesus' is through historical documentation.

---

But this isn't the case. I know Jesus and the historical knowledge came after. It is something I can trust only because I know Jesus.

Before you could read, or listen to others read to you, you did not know of anything about the story of Jesus. However once the bible was introduced into your life, "Jesus" knowledge commenced.

i am not sure if you want answers to the questions you posed because chose to use the phrase 'reason(ed) my questions'. you have your own beliefs, and obviously Jesus Christ and Christianity is not among them. however, for discussion sake; twice in this thread you proposed the following condition 'If Jesus was what he said he was...' so let's run with that for a while.
If Jesus was what He said He was then it follows He is immortal, and in fact He/God created this universe and everything and everybody in it. to us mortals, that is no small accomplishment. also it would follow that a being with such power, if He so chooses, can take a human form, feel pain, suffer a human death, and make the entire experience very real...and do it for whatever reason He chooses (our incredulity notwithstanding). just because we cannot explain everything means nothing except that we do not know very much.
ultimately, these types of discussions come down to one's beliefs (or lack thereof). if you believe in God (or some other supreme creator, whatever that may be), it is problematic to question the Creator's rationale. consider the following analogy (along with its limitations)...once Leonardo da Vinci finished painting the Mona Lisa, the painting itself begins to ask da Vinci why he used the colors he chose, or those particular brush strokes, or that style of dress. of course, the intelligence difference between a painting and a human is immense (for most), but the comprehension differential between humans and God is very, very, very large. but in our arrogance, we think we can bring God down to our level of logic and reasoning, and that is just not possible.
your have initiated an interesting topic, and i know i have not answered or even reasoned your questions, but that was not my intent.

honseslty you could talk on this for days, bring out new evidence, but no one actually knows fir absolute sre jesus existed, we dont know if he was a mere story teller or magician, so how do we know if he faked death, if it pained him or didnt pain him, if he rose, or his body stolen. It relies on your beleif, therefore, who knows.

exactly Timmo. The problem lies when people claim they know the 'truth' of the resurrection. The reasoning is not credible nor is it merely justified through close-mindedness.

Summit-I read most of your enourmous post, and I will give an example of one of the sources I mentioned-Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian (AD 37-100), who wrote about him in Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquites xviii.3.3 (I think that's right). Josephus narrates some of the problems of the procuratorship of Pilate, and continues: "And there arose about this time a man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds... This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had him condemed to the cross... those who loved him did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day alive again... and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out." He was not a Christian, and it is believed by historians he was writing with his tounge-in-cheek, and there are, indeed, revisions making this clearer. I wrote this version because it is shorter and proves my point. It is commonly accepted by historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, that there was a man named Jesus, who was crucified, and that his body somehow disappeared from his tomb on the third day. Denying this is something all but the most vehemently anti-Christian historians are wise enough to not do, so there is no point in saying it didn't happen. Call up the nearest non-Christian historian knowledgeable about Jesus' time period and see for yourself.

Yet the problem seems that one feebly chooses to trust the propaganda of historical documentation. They take a desperate refuge and believe a somewhat validity in historical fictional stories of the 'resurrection of Jesus'. The greatest historians with open-mindedness challenge history itself.

Propaganda? Josephus was Jewish! He hated Christians!And if a historian challenged history, he couldn't win, as if history was false, his idea would die with him, as it would then be history, thus negating itself. And all I said is that no history says Jesus didn't die, and no history says his body didn't disappear three days later. Some History does deny the Resurection, however. Also, I have a question. If nothing is provable about history, then why are you so anxious to convince others of your view? I would think you would just not argue, since you think all argument is questionable!

Your assuming in absolutes. I never claimed nothing is provable about History. History is debatable, History can be propaganda, hence the use of my 2nd post in this thread. History is an interpretation of the record of society. It is often biased. How we gain knowledge is contextually specific. Therefore views and values will always differ.

Answer the question: Why are you so anxious to convince others of your view? I think this is a very good question that deserves a reply. If you cannot, then wy are you posting? It is a simple question.