Even IF Christ rose again. . . So what?

Southern Stoic · Nov 27, 2020

We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion. This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

Sal Robinson · Nov 27, 2020

I found your post fascinating and well thought out...but this is why I gave up on apologetics.....I give up on proving the resureection...i believe only in living in the Love of the Lord and shoiwng people the love of the Lord

Jeshu · Nov 27, 2020

i can see you do not understand. A Christian dies to his or her 'old' life and comes to life in the new and eternal. A life which does not depend on our mortal flesh but is a Home for our spirit with His Spirit.

So Jesus was the first born, of many other followers, all who have come to life in The Holy Spirit, and so preserved their lives in and with Him.

Romans 6:4 "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

Kenny'sID · Nov 27, 2020

jacks · Nov 27, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian?

Maybe it wasn't the resurrection that early pagans were focused on? Whatever it was, there was explosive growth in Christianity during the first century. If you Google "growth of the church in the first century" you will find many possible explanations. It should be noted that this growth happened despite heavy persecution during that time.

Rescued One · Nov 27, 2020

The sheep

follow Jesus. You believe only if you're a sheep.

Kenny'sID · Nov 27, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this.

We were all once unbelivers, and we know the Christians believed it. Belief in the resurection for unbelleivers has been going on for millennia, so some are definitely being shown sucessfully the resurrection happened.

You just have to do as everyone else did, and believe the bible.

Also if we take a close look at how miraculouse the universe and all in it entails, being raised from the dead, doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable.

Anyway, same old story, its all about faith, but a litte common sense can't hurt.

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat · Nov 28, 2020

Christ rising from the dead validates everything he said and did. How's that irrelevant? Its thee big deal.

Aussie Pete · Nov 28, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion. This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

The resurrection belief is tenable because it true. It is a real event in history. And the effect on the pagan community was immediate and obvious. The early church grew rapidly in spite of serious persecution and infiltration by false teachers. People were drawn to Christianity because they saw something in Christians that they lacked. Real Christians are the only truly alive people on the earth. That's because we too are raised from the dead. When Jesus rose from the dead, so did I. Christanity is not some kind of religion or philosophy in a smorgasbord of other offerings. It is eternal life. It is life before death as well as after! No other religion offers that.

disciple Clint · Nov 28, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion. This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

You may be missing the fact that in the early church the verbal teaching of the Gospel was done by people who were closely related to the events in it. Also the fact could be verified by people who were living at that time. When it became obvious that Jesus was not returning as quickly as expected the Gospels were written, prior to that we have the epistles of Paul. The Gospels are not just about the resurrection of one man they are about the Son of God becoming man and walking this earth while providing miraculous proof of His identity. Later we have the persecution of believers who went to their deaths rather than change their testimony.

Sketcher · Nov 28, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

If you were part of the first century pagan community, you wouldn't be able to take your 21st century knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions with you. You would have knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions in line with the first century pagan community. And since the pagan beliefs and assumptions had quite a few gaps in it, you would have a very good chance of finding the Gospel convincing. The history speaks for itself.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Nov 28, 2020

When it comes to the ancient world and what converted people It wasn't necessarily about proving the resurrection via some sort of forensic case, that it must have happened because X and Y therefore Z. The case for Christianity during the Apostles time and what convinced others was the whole life of the believers who preached it and the teaching that came with it. You either accepted it or you didn't and the preacher moved on. Christians were mocked by the Philosophical elite, Yet it didn't stop intellectuals from adopting Christianity. It certainty didn't stop the simple laity from adopting it.

The modern forensic argument for the resurrection is based on a historical method which I find useful as a means of cooperating the gospel but not as a means of ultimately proving it. When I think back to my conversion, I read the account and was convinced of it. It's as simple as that. The resurrection I would say was at odds with the ancient world and it's own understanding that the dead remain dead. Actually, rather than it being an ancient understanding, it is a human understanding. It's a fantastic claim, that one man managed to beat death.

That belief is untenable, if you don't accept Christianity. It is contra to the world's wisdom. The shocking thing also, is that it's true.

UnpopularOpinion · Nov 28, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion. This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

Thats why to convert gentiles , because they didn't know prophecy , God used many miracles in first century.
Like when apostles walked , even their shadow on floor would heal sick if lay over sick person so many gentiles believed.

Atheistic worldview is everything but rational , it steals values from Christian world view and try to use them to disprove God.

One of them is for example there is no free will in Atheism just biological reaction caused by matter which is guided by laws of physics so all your thoughts ect were alredy determined the moment Big Bang occured by laws of physics.

Pavel Mosko · Nov 28, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion. This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

But it doesn't exist in isolation. The Resurrection exists with the other things going on in the Book of Acts and Behind the Scenes in the epistles, and if your Egyptian it exists with this....

Toddler Jesus Topples Egyptian Idols!

Akita Suggagaki · Nov 28, 2020

What is the point of a resurrected body anyway if it is so seldom used? When is the last time anyone saw Jesus? What seems more important is survival of death even just in spiritual terms. And just as important is the New Life of the believer even before physical death.

eleos1954 · Nov 28, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion. This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

we have the eyewitness accounts of the apostles .... of which 11 out of the 12 were martyred and none of them never recanted their testimony.

Our earthly bodies do die .... we (the saved) get new bodies when the Lord returns and the 1st resurrection happens.

John 20:29

New Living Translation
Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

It will indeed be proven (materially) when He returns .... however when that happens all decisions have been made and one can not change their mind ... the lost will not receive eternal life (immortality)

so ... on one hand .... if true then immortality and eternal life with the Lord is there

if not true .... then .... we won't know anything anyway ... so what does it matter?

Eternity ..... think about it.

Albion · Nov 28, 2020

jacks said:
Maybe it wasn't the resurrection that early pagans were focused on? Whatever it was, there was explosive growth in Christianity during the first century. If you Google "growth of the church in the first century" you will find many possible explanations. It should be noted that this growth happened despite heavy persecution during that time.

Yes, I found that our friend's post made much of two questionable ideas.

For one, the Resurrection of Christ was more about life after physical death than about the rising of the corpse, the body.

Christ, following the Resurrection, was not the same, physically, as he had been before his burial. And the fact that was most important to those persons who saw him--hundreds of them in the days following--was that he lived again, not that his body was revivified. We have plenty of testimony in Scripture that the body had been changed.

The second questionable point concerned the supposed attitude of the "pagans" concerning life after death. There are many different varieties of pagans, as we all know, but among them and among the Jews who first encountered the risen Christ, life after death was not at all an unthinkable idea.

Clare73 · Nov 28, 2020

Southern Stoic said:
We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion.

This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

The resurrection is simply proof that Jesus is who said he is.

What you do with what Jesus said he is up to you.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

eleos1954 · Nov 28, 2020

Albion said:
Yes, I found that our friend's post made much of two questionable ideas.

For one, the Resurrection of Christ was more about life after physical death than about the rising of the corpse, the body.

Christ, following the Resurrection, was not the same, physically, as he had been before his burial. And the fact that was most important to those persons who saw him--hundreds of them in the days following--was that he lived again, not that his body was revivified. We have plenty of testimony in Scripture that the body had been changed.

The second questionable point concerned the supposed attitude of the "pagans" concerning life after death. There are many different varieties of pagans, as we all know, but among them and among the Jews who first encountered the risen Christ, life after death was not at all an unthinkable idea.

yes and also the immortal "soul" concept is from greek philosophers.

Albion · Nov 28, 2020

Clare73 said:
The resurrection is simply proof that Jesus is who said he is.

It is that. Yes indeed. BUT it is also about our own futures. That point is also clearly made in the Gospel accounts.

Even IF Christ rose again. . . So what?

Member

Active Member

Bought by His Blood

Well-Known Member

Er Victus

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Well-Known Member

For who can resist his will?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Born Imperishable

Dissident

Active Member

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Facilitator

Blood-bought

God is Love

Facilitator

Similar threads