In the future, you take a "time safari" to Jesus' time, you witness his crucifixion, and you are an eyewitness of his decaying, non-resurrected corpse.
Would you remain a Christian?
I just read today somewhere on the net that some believe a man named Juda removed his body so the disciples wouldn't steal his body or something like that.
I'm not a Christian in the 1st place. I actually recommend a book called Bloodline Of The Holy Grail: The true origin of Jesus Christ. The title does have a few variations but it's an enlightening book.
The thing is that hardly anyone knew of Jesus at the time of his death. Christianity wasn't invented until 30 + years later by Paul who never met Jesus, or there's no record of him meeting Jesus. So it wouldn't of mattered if Jesus was resurrected or not.
Didn't he meet Jesus on the road to Damascus? Or are you talking about another Paul?
This is Paul's story:
"And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink."
— Acts 9:3–9, ASV
Many argue that Paul's influence on Christianity was malign.
Yes, that's what I meant by met. Not physically lol
Christianity as it is usually practiced and understood today is largely a Pauline invention. It's a big subject, bigger than I am willing to address in this forum. I can recommend a few books on the subject, if you wish.
@pennyofheaven. Yes I meant Paul (formally Saul - inventer of Christianity)never met Jesus physicaly.
I wouldn't remain a Christian. While I do believe in that, one of the things that the Bible loves to boast about is truth. I would be doing myself a disservice to believe in something that I know is a lie. (Yet how many times do i do that anyway).
Hmm, not sure if I should fully answer this...
Since Jesus Resurrection only deals with man's spirituallity once dead and since spirituality can neither be proved nor disproved as being a reality seeing a corpse would have no bearing.
Every man dies a physical death. What happens to their spirit in the spiritual realm nobody knows.
Jesus crucifixion and death are the more important part of the story, because we as Christians are taught and believe by our "Faith" that as Jesus hung their on the cross awaiting death, that the sins of mankind were heaped upon him, taking our sin for himself. This act alone frees mankind from their sin, provided one asks Jesus for forgiveness.
The Resurrection of Jesus physically is not as important as His spiritual resurrection and his rising up to heaven as witnessed by others.
You know Dave, you throw around the word "spirituality" like you actually know what it is. Your inability to comprehend the difference between mystical BS and metaphysical existence is your problem.
Cagsil: Every person on the face of this earth past present and to come is created by God as a
"Spirit Being", Like it or not, accept it or not, that's your choice. So when i mention "Spirituality" I am referring to a persons spirit being.
Yada, yada, yada.
Spirituality which is part of any and all religions of the world is nothing more than mystical BS.
Why? Because, mysticism was fully active long before religion was ever put into place.
Mysticism is intellectual dishonesty with an individual. It means they are following mystical BS.
Psyche- mind and consciousness - Metaphysical.
So, essentially you're tell others you're dishonest with yourself. Good to know.
Do you have any clue...what you are talking about? Mysticism was active before religion, so that makes it B.S.? What did you do, go on vacation and leave your logic in your other hat?
Hey Druid Dude, dude chill.
The original thought processes which originally began all thought processes came from the right side of the brain before rational thought ever existed.
It wasn't until humankind developed the ability for rational thought, reasoned and logic thought process, which came from self awareness and an attempt to explain the world around self.
What did you think humans were just put here with rationality? Give me a break.
Just for a second I thought you meant you saw Jesus come back as a zombie. I suppose it is possible to be a follower of Jesus' philosophy but not accept his divinity. Of course, I do neither.
It would take far less then that for me. I would simply have to try to talk to him. Any messiah worth his salt should be able to speak in fluent english even tho the language wasn't invented yet.
Yeah, I think so.
But as humans, we need to believe in a creator. It only makes sense. It keeps me from being jaded
Call it spiritual if you will; I need it. And it's a beacon of light for me to light the way.
Otherwise I'd be putting other people as gods and that could be a very dangerous thing because people always disapoint you where god is always there 24/7 to talk to, just like a beautiful nature walk etc. The peace of the universe and a higher power I choose to call God.
@schoolgirlforreal: Two things. First, believing in a Creator and believing in the divinity of Jesus are not necessarily the same thing. Second, your assertion is too broad. I'm a human, and I don't believe in a Creator.
Sadly, if the promise of cosmic eternal reward were removed (and that appears to be the bottom line message taught as the meaning behind the resurrection) I think most people would ignore his teachings. And, to me, the teachings are more important than the afterlife. Those Christians I've met who focus on the non mystical portion are usually more 'Christian' than the Bible thumpers who threaten eternal damnation.
I think if the resurrection truly happened, the meaning is far different from what organized religion perceives it as. The cult that has evolved is so far removed from the figure in the gospels that the term Christian, as it is generally played out by those who consider themselves to be the most pious, has become ludicrous.
I like it also, at it's core it deals with all the basic issues.
Well said. Much of Christianity, and much of theistic morality generally, appears to promote peace and tolerance and being nice to people, but this is a false pretense.
The ultimate reason nuns feed poor children, missionaries deliver healthcare in developing countries, Christians fund hospitals and charities, etc, is because they are courting the favor of God. They are doing it for fundamentally selfish reasons: to avoid hell, or to attain heaven.
If they were just doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they wouldn't need God to tell them to do it.
I don't think so. Because each of those groups are made up of people, individulals, like you or I say. And I wouldn't do it for that reason.
If I may ask, are there any non believer places that give out food in food pantries? It seems churches are the only places.
Maybe to prove your point, you could start your own food pantry?
There are exceptions to every rule.
So you are saying you don't need God, and therefore religion, to act morally.
Here is a random list of secular charities and causes: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities
Some are more political in nature. But you have organizations like Oxfam, Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, Kiva, Goodwill Industries, Rotary International and plenty more.
Many organizations, such as Goodwill or the Red Cross, began with religious overtones or religious inspiration, but are now very secular in nature.
Moreover, perhaps most importantly, governments use social welfare programs, healthcare services, education, etc, to directly help literally billions of people every day. These governments are obviously secular in nature--all first world governments, and most governments of poorer countries as well.
It's unfortunate that many such as yourself think churches have the monopoly on helping people.
How do you know I haven't?
I think it's fair to say that non-believers often try to get the gov to do the job of charities, to provide shelter and things like food stamps or money allowances for food, something much more reliable then charities. I know when I was homeless and dramatically underweight from lack of food (I wound up with health problems as a direct result of malnutrition, in the good ol' US of A) charity could NOT be relied on for anything! Government handouts were just enough to keep me alive long enough to sort my life out, not charities. The most I got from food pantries that I could actually use were a few candy bars, sorry but with no kitchen, a bag of flour is useless. Of course now I get called a socialist but I'm OK with that . What I do notice is that those most prone to calling me a socialist and most likely to rally AGAINST gov helping the poor with welfare and such are the ones who cry loudest about being a christian. Odd that
I don't think I'm convinced all religious people see it that way. I think of Mother Teresa. She apparently lost her faith, but kept ministering to and serving the poorest among us. I think she got it, at least by what I think they are supposed to get.
There are exceptions to every rule.
But just trace the line of reasoning: why should you turn the other cheek/ help those in need, etc? What is the real justification for it? Ultimately, in these religions, it is because God said so.
This is known as the "divine command theory" of morality. In divine command theory, something is moral because God said it is.
We basically have two options: either (1) God commands it because it is good, or (2) it is good because God commands it. If we choose (1), then we don't need God to act morally, we just need that external standard, whatever it is. Obviously this would fly in the face of much of Abrahamic tradition.
Not all religious individuals buy into it, but the religion itself is structured on this kind of thinking. That is why you see the phenomena you mentioned above.
I was raised in a Christian home, but I don't remember anyone ever saying do this or that because of God. You did some things because to not do them would reflect poorly on the family. Other things you did because you were raised better than that (which I suppose reflected poorly on the family if you didn't). It was always about thinking things through and choosing what you would want others to do if the roles were reversed.
No one ever mentioned hell and if a Bible was ever cracked in that house, I wasn't privy to it. It was the same with my grand parents.
I honestly think they simply believed religion was about being the best person you could be and honestly evaluating your efforts. That effort was their homage to God. Never spoken, but always acted upon. I respect that.
Religion was probably more of a secondary consideration, serving nonreligious principles in your home. Especially if a Bible was never cracked. The Bible is the foundational text of Christianity, so it's pretty important. My guess is your home was not "Christian" per se but borrowed principles and values from Christianity as well as other sources (such as common sense, family tradition or humanism).
As I said, the question is, logically, where does one get one's morals from? What is the real reason WHY one should do this or that? There must be a foundation for it. One doesn't have to explicitly say "it's because of God" for that to be the real underlying cause. Most average followers of Jesus don't get that deep into the philosophy of it anyway. But that is the basis of Christian moral living and teaching.
There are morals that are naturally arising and morals that are taught. Jesus attempted to teach what is naturally arising. Most belief systems in my view, try to point to what is naturally arising.
Absolutely. The foundation for all morality is our basic humanity and the basic instinctual reality evolution has ingrained in us. That is why these belief systems became so popular--they confirmed the tendencies already inherent in us.
It's not some external cosmic authority; we have the potential within us. If billions of religious believers could understand that, the world would be a radically different place.
I swear to you, in our personal discussions, a hubber you know well, who is constantly arguing on these forums, told me that Jesus christ was a good example for morals.
How convenient it is, for people to pretend otherwise just to prove their own points.
Do you mean pretend that Jesus didn't teach the morals?
no, I mean they pretend they hate Jesus (or rather Christianity) when in "our" private discussions they admitted he did a lot of good.
Oh? Makes no sense why one would do that. Perhaps it is the stigma attached to the Christian faith rather than Jesus's philosophy that makes one do that. I don't know.
You do realize that Jesus is bigger than Christianity? Christians use the name. There are many of us who respect Jesus' teachings but see none of his philosophy displayed in organized religion.
that's odd. From my experience Jesus is all over the New testament and the churches are based on the biblical teachings.
strange thing to hear.
Although I agree that a belief in God is not necessary in order to understand and live a moral life, I feel somewhat compelled to tell you that simply because a person who defines themself as a Christian doesn't fit into the box of your understanding doesn't mean they aren't what they claim to be. My parents were not idiots. If they claimed to be Christian, I'm sure they were exactly what they claimed to be.
I assume you are an atheist, and I always wonder about the narrow mindedness of the philosophy, in comparison to very dogmatic Christianity. Both camps seem to want to tell everyone what they are and what they should be.
That a God may not be necessary, may also depend on how a person is nurtured or not. If a person was horrifically abused as a child both mentally and physically, as an adult he/she may not have access (due to the mental scars from abuse) to the inner resources that allow what is inherent to arise. Therefore Christianity or other belief systems may become useful in that it may serve to heal the inner scars of abuse and enable one to find what is naturally inherent.
I agree there are Christians that walk the talk and Christians that don't. I would hesitate to blame whatever on the Christian philosophy and am inclined to look more to the individual.
"simply because a person who defines themself as a Christian doesn't fit into the box of your understanding doesn't mean they aren't what they claim to be."
I hear that a lot. Unfortunately for your argument, it's not "my" understanding of Christianity, it is "the" definition of the religion. Jesus was born to a virgin; he rose from the dead; he is the human incarnation of God; he will return in the end times; he is the only path to salvation; he is the savior prophesied in the Old Testament; there is heaven and hell. This is Christianity. One does not have to believe every single iota of this nonsense to be a Christian. It's not black and white. But a good portion of it, yes.
The less often you read the Bible, the less often you attend church, the less often you pray, the less of the above doctrine you take to be literally true... the less Christian you are. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement at all. In fact, it seems very fair.
What is wrong with saying that your parents or relatives were not "true" Christians? That they borrowed moral principles from multiple sources? What's wrong with that? Why does every mainstream person in the western world who is not an atheist or a Jew have to be a "Christian"?
No, I'm not an atheist. At least not in the way "atheist" is defined these days. Look who's assuming things now.
What are you then, if not an atheist? An evolutionist??
Most would probably describe me as an agnostic. Not sure what evolution has to do with any of this.
And on the point of what people call themselves vs. what they actually are, consider this. Most people in the US were taken to church as children, told about Jesus, yadda, yadda.
Then when a pollster asks them what religion they are, what will they say? They certainly aren't Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else. They believe in God, so they aren't atheist or agnostic.
What's left? Well, they more or less agree with a lot of what Jesus said even if they don't think he literally rose from the dead. They believe in one God, and they're familiar with Noah's ark, Adam and Eve and all that jazz. So they will call themselves Christian.
Meanwhile, they watch porn and trashy hedonistic TV shows. Their main concern in life is making money, providing for their family, taking a nice vacation. They really don't go to church anymore and don't read the Bible. Christians? Really?
Over 70% of Americans call themselves "Christian." Meanwhile, over 95% have sex before marriage. Half of all marriages end in divorce. It's estimated that around 70% of Americans do not attend church on a regular basis. And a plurality (41%) rarely or never read sacred texts. Christians? Really?
I prefer to look at people's actions, and the culture those actions create, rather than their words.
Sorry, we aren't a prudish lot. I'm sure your straight laced sensibilities are better than ours, but we think we do just fine. Where are you from, anyway?
Haha, huh?? First of all, who is "we"? And me, straight laced? You don't know me very well, lol. It's the devout Christians that are straight laced, because of their religion as I mentioned above. No sex before marriage, modesty, etc. Not much of a counter to my above points in any case. I'm from all over the Northeast. I currently live in New York.
Us would be Americans. So, you are American also... what's the beef? You do realize that a very miniscule number of Christians are the literalists? We wouldn't be the nation we are if it wasn't who we chose to be. Simply because you equate Christianity as a certain mindset doesn't mean they are what you think.
I don't see Christians any different from anyone else. Most everyone I run across talks out of both sides of their mouth. Trying to say the same thing as the group they want to be a part of. People lack integrity across the board by my observation because they are scared to be perceived as different. Plus, where consideration for others is concerned, a large chunk of humanity plays to the lowest common denominator. You don't need religion for that. It appears to come naturally from a pack mentality.
I don't have any beef. I'm just giving an analysis. I like secularism. I just want to call things what they are. I welcome everyone into the secular world, just be honest about it and stop trying to pretend one is "Christian" when they really have only the slightest connection to that religious tradition. It's a sliding scale. Not black/ white. The less seriously you take the doctrine and practices of Christianity, the less "Christian" you are. And the more seriously, the more Christian you are. Simple.
"People lack integrity across the board by my observation because they are scared to be perceived as different."
Sure. That precisely agrees with my point.
"Simply because you equate Christianity as a certain mindset doesn't mean they are what you think."
You already said that. And in response I gave my broad definition of Christianity. So, if you disagree with my definition, what is yours?
Hmmm you sound like a strict Christian berating those "not so strict ones" ! what do you care what people do? Why? Is it your business?
As I said to Emile, it's a sliding scale for analytical purposes, not black and white. I don't "care" what people do in the sense that it does not bother me personally. But it's my business as someone who is interested in the truth and learning what the facts are. I want more secularism, not less. Less religion, not more. So let's be honest about reality.
When you say "probably" all of this talk is assuming. You have no knowlege personally, do you? How dare you assume!!
Well, that's a good honest answer, Emile.
Good for you!
true, the teachings are more important.
I gave this one a lot of thought before responding, and my answer is yes. I think the teachings of Jesus as to how to treat others and promote peace are the best principles in the world to live by. I would see Him as a man filled with divine wisdom and do my best to follow him.
I have no interest in religion and am often outspoken against church, but I do agree that the teachings of Jesus Christ is more important than whether or not he was the son of god. I think even non-religious people would agree that his teachings served as a blueprint to what would eventually become a humane civilization.
Interesting question. Paul said it in 1 Corinthians 15. Verse 14 says "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is empty, and your faith also is empty." He continues in verse 19, "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."
If Christ was not resurrected, then our Christianity has no eternal value. It has no power. Everyone who dies has "perished" (verse 18).
I am so glad that he was indeed resurrected and through his death and resurrection paid the price for our sin. Through him we gain access to the eternal life we were designed for.
It's late (2;00AM) I'm tired, can't think of any OT references of Jesus riseing up out of the grave?
Can anyone help me on this?
That aren't any, at last none that are explicit and unambiguous.
What motivated this question?
Among other things, The OP and Your previous comment brought this to mind.
I would think that , with all the other prophesy concerning the Messiah, everything from his birth and details about his death; his resurection should also have been prophesied in the OT.
I hope someone knows of such a prophesy from the OT.
Daydreaming? Don't hold your breath on that safari thing. Here is a factoid: The 'amount' of energy in the universe is a constant; therefore, if your energy were removed from this time/ space, and deposited in the past time/space OR the future time/space, it would create an imbalance of energy, not just in this time/space, but in the time/space you have been deposited. In short, the very act of time travel constitutes a PARADOX. Further, the speed of light IS NOT the point at which time travel occurs. Particles (sub-atomic) have been discovered which move beyond the speed of light, and it has been postulated that galaxies at the farthest edge of what we can detect may also be moving in excess of the speed of light. In short, it is more possible for Jesus to have been resurrected, than it would be for you to be a member of that safari. Besides, the Romans, seeing you, would enslave you and you end your days as an oarsman on some warship.
I like it, can you imagine any of us turning up in those days..... with the knowledge we have, they would have either killed us or worshipped us.!
How can it be a constant when the universe is said to be expanding? How do we know the past, present and future are not contained within the universe?
The possibility of an actual time safari wasn't the point of the question.
"Suppose that you KNEW that Jesus didn't rise from the dead . . . would you remain a Christian?"
Obviously not, His claims would have been false.
Thankfully, He did and is here with us now, in the form of the Holy Spirit.
If you took a time trip, witnessed his crucifixion, and witnessed his triumphant rising from the dead,
Would you become one?
Becoming one would completely be at odds with those events.
That's interesting. I don't see proof of the resurrection as proof of Christianity , as it has evolved, being a valid philosophy. One moment in time doesn't explain anything. I would think it would also be necessary to either speak to him personally or interview those who were under his tutelage; in order to understand the meaning behind the event.
I think the likelihood that Christianity, as it is practiced, is reflective of the desires of a deity for human interaction and personal growth is highly improbable.
I don't see it as proof of Christianity, either, but definitive proof of a resurrection would increase the likelihood that there was _something_ of (nontrivial) interest about the founder of Christianity. I'm not talking about anything meriting worship or veneration; I'm not aware of any finding which could induce that. I would be a "Christian" with approximately the same relation to Christ that a lepidopterist has to moths. No mumber-jumbo involved.
I am starting to think the claims have more to do with longevity in the physical sense. That Jesus was resurrected physically is illogical (maybe not impossible) and reveals someone wanting to hold on to existence as they know it.
Not me...Watching the people that you love die year after year after year...Nah...I'll live my allotted time and call it a life well lived and be done with it.
by Jenna Ditsch6 years ago
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid...
by Melissa Barrett3 years ago
There's a lot of going back and forth about how Christians are this that or another. Yet no one ever pins down exactly what specific belief it is that makes Christians delusional, or hateful or whatever. The fact is...
by Liam Hallam6 years ago
Why do you feel that many people have deserted a particular religion or simply chosen not to followHave the major religions not moved with the times? As an agostic i'd like to see what others feel and see?
by Dave Mathews6 years ago
I am sick and tired of homosexuals crying for equal rights.The Judeo-Christian faiths believe according to their religious Holy Scripture whether that be the Torah, or the Holy Bible, that homosexuality is an...
by lucieanne6 years ago
After reading and contributing to so many posts about Christianity on here I'd love for someone to answer this question. Which form (if any)of Christianity is the real deal? It's one thing to get into heated debates...
by Fairbear19 months ago
Two relatively similar people are presented with the Bible and the message of Christianity. Person one takes to it eagerly. Person two pushes it as far away as it will go. What is the difference between these two...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.