Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

[cbayer]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/18/opinion/parini-jesus-easter/


Penitents take part in Laguna on the Spanish Canary Island of Tenerife on Saturday, April 19.

Editor's note: Jay Parini, a poet and novelist, teaches at Middlebury College. He has just published "Jesus: the Human Face of God," a biography of Jesus. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- As Easter comes into view, the thoughts of billions of Christians turn to Jerusalem, to a sacred weekend that includes the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Of course, people regard these events with various degrees of literalness. But Easter retains its power.

It is, in fact, the essential Christian celebration, as the Gospels focus hugely on this part of the Jesus story. They describe in slow motion his entry into Jerusalem and the final week leading up to the crucifixion on Good Friday, the uncertain stillness of Holy Saturday, when the world seems to have slipped into total darkness, then the joy of the Resurrection itself, with a sense that boundaries have been broken -- most aggressively, the membrane between life and death.

Questions arise, of course. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? What would that look like? Many Christians imagine some literal wakening from the dead and refuse to accept the slightest hint that the Resurrection might be regarded as symbolic without denigrating it.

Indeed, if you read the Gospel narratives closely, it's not easy to say what actually happened. All four of them skip the actual Resurrection. That is, we never see Jesus waken. The first inkling of change comes when a few women close to him visit the tomb. Accounts differ on who turned up at the tomb that morning: Mary Magdalene, a close friend of Jesus, alone or with Mary, his mother, and with Salome (who is either Mary's sister or the mother of apostles James and John).

more at link

[Loudly]

1. So those costumes started out as pious? Or did someone run the wrong photo?

[cbayer]

3. I noticed that as well.

Those are penitents from Tenerife and I suspect that there may be no connection to the garb of the KKK , but I am not sure.

[catbyte]

12. The KKK stole them. Christians have used them for hundreds of years. Swastikas turn

up in Hindu temples & Native American art. Evil co-opting symbols.

[cbayer]

14. Thanks so much for that info, catbyte.

I think I may have heard that before, but really didn't remember.

[Jim__]

15. It looks like a Spanish custom from the 15th century.

From Time:

?w=720

While Holy Week is celebrated around the globe by Christians, Spain is renowned for a particularly colorful tradition: the procession of the nazareno penitents. Looking for all the world like they’re wearing the getup of the reviled Klu Klux Klan, the penitents are in fact covering their faces with hoods in order to publicly repent without being identified, in a tradition dating back to the 15th Century.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. See eg A Procession of Flagellants by Francisco Goya, 1812-1814

http://www.backtoclassics.com/gallery/franciscogoya/a_procession_of_flagellants/

[EvilAL]

2. If he was god,

he never really died in the first place, so he wasn't resurrected. If he was human the only thing I can see is he was pronounced dead prematurely and woke up in a tomb he could easily escape, only to succumb to his crucifixion injuries soon after.

[merrily]

6. Whether you believe it or not, the pemise is that a member of the

God trinity who was born as a human was indeed capable of being tempted to sin, suffering, dying, just as a human is capable of those things. That was the point of being born as a human, so that he could resist human temptations and suffer and die for the sins of humankind. IOW, he took the place of animal sacrifices that the Jews were religiously required to make at the temple ever Passover. The animal sacrificed to God at any time of year was required to be the first out of its mother's womb and without blemish.

Once Jesus died, there was no further need for animal sacrifice. Or so devout Christians believe.

If you want to say that, if he did not rise from the dead, he wasn't God, I would agree.

But, if he was never killed, whether for our sins or for threatening the establishment, then the point of the whole story escapes me. I don't mean the point of the things he is supposed to have said. That was good stuff. I get the point of those things. But, if he wasn't killed, then he's just someone who said remarkable words, especially for his day, or at least had remarkable words attributed to him.

[TexasProgresive]

7. What you are suggesting is Docetism.

‪Docetism‬ a belief that Jesus appeared human but that was an illusion. Condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325.

The 3 barred cross common to Orthodox churches has a slanted bar representing the foot rest. Crucifixion kills by suffocation. The 2 crucified with Jesus had their legs broken to hasten their death. With broken legs they were unable to push upward to breath.

One interpretation of why foot rest is slanted is that Jesus struggles to breath were so hard that in pushing on the board one nail broke.

This would be a symbol that Jesus was indeed human, and a statement against Docetism.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Was Dionysus put back together again by Rhea?

This is a question that has troubled people for thousands of years. Is it just symbolic? OR DID IT REALLY HAPPEN?

[longship]

5. Maybe first one should maybe answer, Was the Biblical Jesus an historic person, or a mythical one?

There are many mythical elements to the narrative about him, events that are known to be memetic within the culture of that era. Among these is the dying and rising god meme.

There are also parts of the narrative that are clearly fiction. That he was a Nazarene seems to be false, since Nazareth was apparently not a settled community at that time. Parts of the narrative have multiple conflicting accounts, which apologists seem to spend so much time trying to reconcile. The genealogy narratives in Matthew and Luke, for instance, are different. Apologists argue that one is for Mary and one for Joseph. But Mary is supposed to be a virgin, impregnated by Yahweh, so Joseph cannot be Jesus' father!

Then, presuming the gospels agree with one another (which they clearly do not), there's a general lack of historic confirmation of the events of the gospels. Yes, some of the characters actually existed. But some are placed in anachronistic times. Others, there is no confirmation outside the various Biblical accounts, which at any rate do not agree with one another.

There are a lot of problems with the Biblical accounts which argue that this is myth.

I don't know if there was a Jesus or not. My presumption (not assumption) is that he is likely fiction.

Answer that definitively first, then maybe we can get to, "Was Jesus the magical son of God who was raised from the dead?"

It would not take much to convince me that Jesus existed as a person. A single verified unambiguous historic document outside the Bible might tip the balance. The rest, though, has a more difficult mountain to climb.

[Leontius]

8. Of the million more or less inhabitants of Rome at the time how many have "A single verified

unambiguous historic document...." to prove their existence, if they don't is your presumption also that they are "...likely fiction"?

[longship]

9. My presumption is the null hypothesis.

If there is evidence outside the religious literature, than that's fine. Jesus existed.

There just does not appear to be any and the religious literature is a bit of a mangled mess of contradictions.

I just would not take any of it as a confirmation. So my conclusion is that Jesus is likely fictive. But I am willing to change my opinion. But that will be based on evidence, not apologetics.

My putative "single, unambiguous historic document" is, that is all it would take to convince me that I was mistaken that Jesus did not actually lived. Just one well verified account outside the religious literature could do it.

That's what I meant. Sorry if I was not clear.

[Leontius]

11. Why does the fact that these histories, and that is what the four Gospels are, became foundational

religious texts change anything? Why does now according them the title of religious literature suddenly make them unreliable?

[longship]

13. The conflicts between the narratives and documented history is what makes them unreliable.

The history of their evolution, with apparent redactions (many traceable to later times), puts those narratives in question, the claims of inerrancy notwithstanding. Also, the length the apologetics go to align the conflicts speaks volumes by itself. This is not history. If it ever was it has been corrupted by influences which clearly did not have historic accuracy in mind. Plus, then there's also the anachronisms and outright fabrications to consider. For instance, having to go to Bethlehem for a census which no historian records. Who would do it that way? Nobody. Ridiculous!

That's why I cannot take any claim of historic accuracy seriously. And why I think that Jesus is likely fictive.

[Leontius]

18. The existing fragments of the texts show them to be consistently the same over time

The conflicts are simply the fact of four different authors and their informants recollections of the events. Exact wording would be much more suspect. The fabrication of the census has been debunked before. Your earlier statement about Nazareth is not completely correct. There is evidence of a settlement there during the time of Herod the Great. Whether it was a town or just housing for workers at the nearby Roman town is questionable.

[longship]

19. It is highly unlikely that the gospels were written by witnesses.

AFAIK, All of them first appear in the second century, Mark being the earliest. At least that's what biblical scholars have said (something I do not claim to be).

I don't want to get into an apologetics argument here. If you think the gospels are historic, I am okay with that in spite of my disagreement with that conclusion.

Regards.

[hrmjustin]

10. Yes he did.

Happy Easter!

[rug]

17. I'll be mightily pissed if he didn't.

But as it is, I expect he did.

Mark 16

1 When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him.
2 Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb.
3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll back the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”
4 When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large.
5 On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were utterly amazed.
6 He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’”
8 Then they went out and fled from the tomb, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
9 When he had risen, early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.
10 She went and told his companions who were mourning and weeping.
11 When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.
12 After this he appeared in another form to two of them walking along on their way to the country.
13 They returned and told the others; but they did not believe them either.
14 (But) later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised.