Easter Sunday explanation please

Romola

I've more or less become an atheist, but do not "rubbish" Christian traditions. On the contrary, I'm very conscious of being a "cultural Christian" in that I try to live up to the ethics of Jesus without believing that he was anything more than a human teacher.
As for Easter, if people want to believe that Jesus actually died and rose again, and all the other beliefs about an afterlife, that's up to them. To me, Easter is a celebration of the return of life after the hard months of winter.

There is a good case for the resurrection of Jesus. As the philosopher Antony Flew, not a Christian, said: ‘The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.’

One version of the case looks at facts related to the alleged resurrection of Jesus that are agreed upon by a large majority of scholars, Christian or non-Christian. It suggests that the best explanation for these facts is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

‘The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection’ (blog post)
crossexamined.org/the-minimal-facts-of-the-resurrection/

Various lawyers have looked at the evidence and decided it shows that Jesus did rise, including Simon Greenleaf, Professor of Law at Harvard University; Edmund Hatch Bennet, dean of the Boston University School of Law and a judge; Sir Edward Clark KC, barrister; Charles Darling, Chief Justice of England; and Sir Norman Anderson, dean of the faculty of law in the University of London and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He wrote The Evidence for the Resurrection.
www.wayoflife.org/reports/christs-resurrection-testimony-of-lawyers.hp

The legal journalist Lee Strobel, once a convinced atheist, came to the same conclusion after investigation and wrote The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith and The Case for Easter.
amzn.eu/d/0hxvTCG0

As C S Lewis pointed out, Jesus claimed he was God: if he was not God he was not a great teacher, but a liar or else a lunatic.

//But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.//
- C S Lewis, Mere Christianity

People have been thought to have died but in fact are not dead. They have 'woken up' but may have subsequently died.

There was the case of a woman not that long ago in the UK who was declared dead by paramedics; taken to the hospital mortuary but then woke up. There have been other cases recorded worldwide.

Not after crucifixion though. The Roman soldiers who checked he was dead had no doubt seen plenty of dead people and knew the difference. They faced death themselves if they allowed a prisoner to survive.
coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-jesus-really-died/

There was actually an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association about this.

//The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock [losing 20% or more of blood in the body, which makes the heart unable to pump enough blood to the body] and exhaustion asphyxia [a fatal condition occurring when a person's physical position or prolonged struggle prevents them from breathing adequately, leading to severe oxygen deprivation]. Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.//

Edwards et al (1986). "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ". Journal of the American Medical Association. 255 (11): 1455–63.

Quoted in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis

(Jesus was severely flogged before execution, which means he had already lost a lot of blood before he was nailed to the cross. People sometimes died just from the flogging.)

If you believe the Bible (I do), when Jesus was seen again after being put in the tomb, he had a body that could walk through walls.

//On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them . . .

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them//
‭‭ - John‬ ‭20‬.19, 26

Doesn’t sound like the same body as before, that had just fainted and recovered.

What matters is not when the Jesus of history died, but that the Christ of faith is an icon of goodness.

Since the scientific enlightenment of 17th -18th centuries miracles generally have been disbelieved. It's necessary for the future of Christianity that what is important is its moral code .and Jesus as a moveable icon that can span both the age of faith and the age of science.

The Roman soldiers who checked he was dead had no doubt seen plenty of dead people and knew the difference.

I expect doctors, paramedics now have seen plenty of dead people but even they get it wrong on rare occasions.

But there is no point in discussing it with anyone who believes the Bible literally.

Unless you can enter the exact mind set of those there at the time. Their knowledge and beliefs and no knowledge at all about how people now think, you cannot possibly know or understand what did or did not happen between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

If you have listened to two people reporting the same event even today, you would sometimes think they had seem different events, then there is the filter of the minds of the first person to hear and note it down and all that follows.

What matters about all religions, regardless of the paraphanalia of ceremony, dogma and belief, is that their primary exponent, whether named, like Mohamed and Jesus, or more nebulous and nameless is that they preach a life style of humility simplicity and love of fellow humankind and lay out a way this can be done.

All the rest is trifling.

The Resurrection isn't trifling!

It is a massive event the whole Christian religion and indeed western culture and civilisation is based on.

No other religion has this.

Allira

^The Roman soldiers who checked he was dead had no doubt seen plenty of dead people and knew the difference.^

I expect doctors, paramedics now have seen plenty of dead people but even they get it wrong on rare occasions.

But there is no point in discussing it with anyone who believes the Bible literally.

The fact that someone believes, with good grounds, in the Resurrection, does not mean that they take the entire Bible literally.

Did you notice that a paper in an academic medical journal concluded that on the historical evidence Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross?

How many people who have been mistakenly thought to be dead have lost a large volume of blood, struggled to breathe in agony for hours, and had a spear thrust into their side to make sure they were dead?

Would someone who had gone through all that, including having a nail hammered through each foot (probably the heel), be walking around normally, convincing their followers that they had risen from the dead?

(It is generally agreed amongst scholars that Jesus’ followers really did believe this, or they would not have gone to horrible deaths, in almost every case, still proclaiming it.)

Unlikely, I feel.

keepingquiet

The Resurrection isn't trifling!

It is a massive event the whole Christian religion and indeed western culture and civilisation is based on.

No other religion has this.

I entirely agree with you, keepingquiet. This is what the agnostic historian Tom Holland wrote in his book Dominion.

The apostle Paul wrote, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15.17.) Without the Resurrection, its founder is a liar, because he said he would rise from the dead* but did not. He said that he was God, but could not keep his word, could not triumph over death. Without the Resurrection, Christianity is false.

C S Lewis wrote,

//Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important.//

How right he was.

*//Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.’//
- Luke 18.31-33

Yes. Christianity would be pointless without the Resurrection. Indeed, without it we would not have Christianity. We may well still be Jews, more than likely, still worshipping Zeus or Jupiter.

keepingquiet

Yes. Christianity would be pointless without the Resurrection. Indeed, without it we would not have Christianity. We may well still be Jews, more than likely, still worshipping Zeus or Jupiter.

I totally disagree. If we look at Jesus Christ just as a prophet, he was immensely influential, and if an acknowledged prophet like Mohamed, who made no claims to being God can establish a religion that has lasted for over 1,000 years and has members worldwide, then the same can apply to Jesus Christ.

We can have a powerful Cjristian religion, without all the mystery.

But Jesus wasn't just a prophet. Christianity never claimed that he was just that from the very beginning. They preached Christ crucified and resurrected. Without this Jesus would have had no influence at all.

Islam would not have happened without Christianity, even though it claimed Jesus was another prophet Christianity did not preach this.

Islam is really just an heretical off-shoot of Christianity. It has been so successful because it ties its social and ethical codes into the state and society. It is more a code for how to live within strict parameters, rather than a religion with any wider theology.

And Christianity arose out of the Jewish religion....Islam is far more than some kind of "branch off". The concept of God is entirely different in Islam.

M0nica

keepingquiet

Yes. Christianity would be pointless without the Resurrection. Indeed, without it we would not have Christianity. We may well still be Jews, more than likely, still worshipping Zeus or Jupiter.

I totally disagree. If we look at Jesus Christ just as a prophet, he was immensely influential, and if an acknowledged prophet like Mohamed, who made no claims to being God can establish a religion that has lasted for over 1,000 years and has members worldwide, then the same can apply to Jesus Christ.

We can have a powerful Cjristian religion, without all the mystery.

I agree Monica. Plenty of Christians would agree, and I know many.

Wyllow3

And Christianity arose out of the Jewish religion....Islam is far more than some kind of "branch off". The concept of God is entirely different in Islam.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all mono-theistic Abrahamic faiths.
Yes, Christianity can be seen as a heretical branch of Judaism if we want to put it that way. Likewise Islam arose out of, and rejected, the Christian belief in a Trinitarian God.
Yes, Islam rejected Christianity whilst still accepting the primacy of Jesus as a prophet. Islam believes in the role of Mary also, and honour her not quite in the same way as Catholics do, but is something else Christians (Catholics in this context) have in common.
Talking about a 'powerful' form of Christianity seems an odd phrase to use and isn't explained, except the point seems to be that the so called 'mystery'of Christianity is powerless, only with the mystery missing, does it become 'powerful.' I am trying to sort out here what MOnica means by this?
Is Islam more 'powerful' because it lacks mystery?

I meant 'powerful' in the sense of having had the power to grow to be a worldwide religion, nothing more than that. This applies to Islam. Judaism is slightly different because it is not proselitising and essentially goes with an ethnic group.

I am nominally a catholic and I still go to mass regularly, but I think were I to discuss my theological beliefs with a priest, his hair would stand on end.

Wyllow3

And Christianity arose out of the Jewish religion....Islam is far more than some kind of "branch off". The concept of God is entirely different in Islam.

So it seems to me, Wyllow.

The attitude to God in both Judaism and Islam is an attitude of resignation to God's will. Neither Judaism nor Islam have any petitionary prayers . Jesus was very much a Jew when he said
"Let thy will ,not my will ,be done".

M0nica

I meant 'powerful' in the sense of having had the power to grow to be a worldwide religion, nothing more than that. This applies to Islam. Judaism is slightly different because it is not proselitising and essentially goes with an ethnic group.

I am nominally a catholic and I still go to mass regularly, but I think were I to discuss my theological beliefs with a priest, his hair would stand on end.

I do understand your feeling with regard to Catholic ritualism. I myself am not authoritarian , as I my God- belief is that of God as pre-established harmony.

But were I to be permitted to attend some Catholic services I could feel with the sensation of awe that they might occasion in me.

keepingquiet

Yes. Christianity would be pointless without the Resurrection. Indeed, without it we would not have Christianity. We may well still be Jews, more than likely, still worshipping Zeus or Jupiter.

Yes, but some Christians can see the Resurrection , not as a "conjuring trick with bones "(Bishop of Durham) but as a metaphor for the ongoing influence of Jesus of Nazareth as a teacher if how best to live one's life.

M0nica

I meant 'powerful' in the sense of having had the power to grow to be a worldwide religion, nothing more than that. This applies to Islam. Judaism is slightly different because it is not proselitising and essentially goes with an ethnic group.

I am nominally a catholic and I still go to mass regularly, but I think were I to discuss my theological beliefs with a priest, his hair would stand on end.

I suspect you are not on your own there, MOnica!
Pick and mix Catholicism abounds these days, and we are all guilty of this to a greater or lesser extent.
However, the very few absolute truths of the faith are not open to discussion...and the Resurrection is one of them.

In response to Caleo I cannot believe in a metaphor-what would be the point in that?

Pick and mix Catholicism abounds these days

I really object to that phrase. It suggests choosing what aspects appeal to you and what do not, 'I will have the liuorice all sorts but I really hate the strawberry creams.'

I have yet to get anywhere near that. I am still struggling with who and what my understanding of God is. Doctrine is a long way ahead.

I was born and brought up a catholic and in a catholic church I am in a society I understand and have lived in all my life. Struggles in life are always easier when they can be dealt with within a loving family and the same applies to my struggles with religious belief..

Keepingquiet Yes, there are basic tenets of Christianity and the Resurrection is one of these. (Creation - Fall - Incarnation - Crucifixion - Resurrection - Redemption, receiving the Holy Spirit and eternal life for all who will trust and follow Jesus, because his death pays the penalty for their sin.)

If someone doesn’t believe those basics, they’re not a Christian in the way that the New Testament uses the word. They might think they are, but they’re using their own definition.

Christianity would not have spread across the Roman empire after Jesus died a horrible, humiliating, degrading death unless he had risen. His disciples were discouraged and fear-stricken after he was buried. If they had not seen him again, alive, they would have sunk into disillusionment. They would surely have thought, ‘He said he was God, he said he would come back from the dead – but he has not, and he must have lied.’ They could not have had the single-minded devotion and courage that enabled them to spread his message at whatever cost to themselves.

They believed he was God, Lord and the one who came to save the world. They could not have believed that if they did not think he had risen from the dead.

In its first 300 years, Islam was mainly spread by the sword. Christianity, by contrast, spread under persecution because people became convinced that it was true.

Here’s what Peter preached in Jerusalem only 40 days after Jesus was killed.

//‘God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. …

let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.’//
- Acts 2.32, 36

This is the man who denied three times that he even knew Jesus, now filled with boldness. Something happened in between.

He spoke with such power that:

//When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’

Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off– for all whom the Lord our God will call.’ …

Those who accepted his message were baptised, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.//
- Acts 2.37-41