American Vison's President, Gary DeMar has posted on his website an excellent series on "The Resurrection of Christ; Hoax or History?" Here are the topics he's covering;
- Part 1 (March 14): Introduction and Scriptural account
- Part 2 (March 19): Refuting poorly constructed theories concocted to explain away the resurrection
- The Theft Theory (The Jews or Romans stole the body)
- The Wrong Tomb Theory
- The Legend Theory
- Part 3 (March 20): Refuting poorly constructed theories concocted to explain away the resurrection continued...
- The Swoon Theory (Jesus never actually died and was simply resuscitated.)
- The Hallucination Theory (The people who claimed to be witnesses of Christ's resurrection simply had hallucinations.)
- The "Contradictory Gospel Accounts" Theory
- Part 4 (March 21): How the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Changed the World (link not available yet as of 3/20/08).
2 comments:
Resurrection is no longer believed even by genuine Christian scholars, those that teach at leading seminaries and divinity schools. It never has been, frankly, because if you had actually done real research, you would know that this doctrine was a contructed one in the second century of the church's existence. The evidence is there for anyone to see.
The decision to claim resurrection was arrived at long after Christ's death, as a element of church doctrine, just as was the mythology of a virgin birth.
Nothing in the bible—not a single word—is an eyewitness account. It was all of it—all of it—concocted after the fact.
Ladies and gentlemen, it didn't happen. Christ was an historical figure, yes, and a genuine mystic and prophet, and yes, you can argue that he was in a symbolic fashion born of God. But he was not born of a virgin mother, and he did not resurrect from the dead.
And deep in your hearts, I suspect you know it, too.
A genuine faith comes when you no longer refute the evidence of history and logic. The bible is utterly true, when viewed symbolically.
It is utter nonsense if you read it as history.
"genuine Christian scholars, those that teach at leading seminaries and divinity schools." The Jesus Seminar "scholars" don't count. They've been utterly refuted as ludicrous professors of biblical theology.
You say the doctrine of the resurrection was constructed in the 2nd century? How is that so when in A.D. 57, 23 years after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Cor 15: 15, 16, "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise."
"Nothing in the bible—not a single word—is an eyewitness account. It was all of it—all of it—concocted after the fact."
Read Matthew 28, the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and 1 Cor 15:6 where Christ appeared to 500 at one time!
"Christ was an historical figure,...It [The bible] is utter nonsense if you read it as history."
How can you say that Christ is historical, yet on the other hand say reading about him in the bible "utter nonsense"? There are many historical events in the scriptures that you have no choice but to read as history. Especially the genealogies, and where it speaks of towns, villages, governors, kings and rulers?
I'm afraid you, doubting Thomas, have been asleep at the wheel of your studies.
Post a Comment