Var Jesus stormannsgal?

[perpyro]

Ja men jeg bryr meg ikke, for meg så er ikke de virkelige.

Og da dukker nødvendigvis spørsmålet opp.

Hvorfor er din religion den riktige blandt alle de andre som tar feil?

Endret 1. juli 2007 av perpyro

[Latskap]

Fordi det er den jeg tror på.

[thadon]

Fordi det er den jeg tror på.

8982267[/snapback]

Hvorfor tror du på den?

Fordi vesten er kristent.

[Latskap]

Altså, det er irrelevant. Jeg tror på det jeg tror på uansett.

Endret 1. juli 2007 av Latskap

[rtr]

Hvorfor skal jeg få med meg de? [...]

8982013[/snapback]

Fordi, ut fra det skrev så var tydeligvis popularitet alt som skulle til for at Jesus og hans påståtte overnaturlige evner ville være mer enn fabler. Dermed så hilser man alle andre tilsvarende skikkelser velkommen.

Endret 1. juli 2007 av rtr

[Latskap]

Hvorfor skal jeg få med meg de? [...]

8982013[/snapback]

Fordi, ut fra det skrev så var tydeligvis popularitet alt som skulle til for at Jesus og hans påståtte overnaturlige evner ville være mer enn fabler. Dermed så hilser man alle andre tilsvarende skikkelser velkommen.

8983166[/snapback]

 

Vel, jeg driter egentlig i populariteten til religionen. Jeg tror på det jeg tror på.

[J@cob]

Om Jesus faktisk gikk på solid is,dandert med litt vann, ville han ikke da få betraktelig store frostskader på sine føtter?

[pumba50]

Det var ikke is. Det kan ikke være is der nede, verken på sommeren eller vinteren. Dessuten var det på våren/sommeren, for det var vel like før han ble hengt på korset, og det skjedde i påsken.

 

Sånn, den saken oppklart. Istede for å bruke førti tusen innlegg i tråden bare for å diskutere om han gikk på is eller ikke.

[Kasparov]

Jeg tror at Jesus (hvis han har eksistert) var en ekstremt genial person, som skjønte at han kunne utnytte troen til lokalbefolkningen. (Og det faktum at de ikke hadde så mange galehus enda..)

 

Han var sansynligvis en jævel i kunsten og argumentere og manipulere.

 

Stormansgal: Det med at Jesus skulle gjort ditt og datt ble jo skrevet ned i ettertid, og ble sikkert skrevet ned for å overbevise folk om at han faktisk var guds sønn.

[Kasparov]

Det var ikke is. Det kan ikke være is der nede, verken på sommeren eller vinteren. Dessuten var det på våren/sommeren, for det var vel like før han ble hengt på korset, og det skjedde i påsken.

 

Sånn, den saken oppklart. Istede for å bruke førti tusen innlegg i tråden bare for å diskutere om han gikk på is eller ikke.

8988125[/snapback]

 

I følge illustrert vitenskap kunne det godt vært is han gikk på.

[larskheg]

Jeg hegner egentlig på tråden om JEsus eksisterer, men fikk lyst å kommentere dette innlegget fordi det reett og slett var komisk. Kommer ikke til å lese svar til det, svar på tråden om JEsus eksisterer hvis ud vil ha kommentar fra meg

 

######################

 

Finner ikke IV bladet jeg leste det i, har gitt bort mange av dem, men skal si/skrive hva jeg husker.

 

Det var betydlig mye kaldere for 2000 år siden, var så kaldt at det av og til dannet seg is på vannet, men denne isen var ikke OPPÅ vannet, den var under vannet, ergo viss en elv ( tror det var en elv jesus gikk på) så vil vannet renne over isen.. Og viss kun noe av vannet hadde is "under" seg  så kunne han ha gått på den og viss apostlene sto et lite stykke unda så ville det se ut som om han gikk på vannet.

 

Nettopp, der har du det... Jeg sier ikke at dette er eneste løsning, men ja, jeg tror på.... Logikk ( nå gikk det en frysning nedover ryggen min ) og derfor tror jeg ikke på at han var en sønn til en gud som mirakuløst fikk sin sønn til å gå på vannet... Det er ikke naturlig.

8952773[/snapback]

 

Da er illustrert vitenskap så dumt som jeg hadde trodd. De tenker ikek på at vi faktisk vet HVOR dette skejdde, og at det skjedde på den største innsjøen i Israel, nemlig Genesaretsjøen (hvor det faktisk var steikende varmt)? Og det skjedde i tillegg i storm, og dermed ville da is-deler blitt brutt løs, og knust båten. Hvor dumt kan Illustrert vitenskap bli?

[rtr]

Da er illustrert vitenskap så dumt som jeg hadde trodd. De tenker ikek på at vi faktisk vet HVOR dette skejdde, og at det skjedde på den største innsjøen i Israel, nemlig Genesaretsjøen (hvor det faktisk var steikende varmt)? Og det skjedde i tillegg i storm, og dermed ville da is-deler blitt brutt løs, og knust båten. Hvor dumt kan Illustrert vitenskap bli?

8995083[/snapback]

 

Du vil da altså mene det er helt umulig å befinne seg i en båt på en sjø dekket av tynn is, hvor en kan kjenne vindkastene godt, fordi båten ville ha blitt knust? Det virker som du sitter med et bilde av et verst tenkelig scenario, men det står ikke noe om hvor sterk motvinden virkelig var.

 

Det var den amerikanske professoren i oseanografi, Doron Nof, som fremmet dette som en mulig forklaring på denne ekstraordinære påstanden. Du vil kanskje lese om funnene før du helt avviser dem?

Artikkel i New York Times

Tidsskriftet og artikkelen det henvises til i NY Times

 

Forklaringen ville også ha gitt en ny og mer troverdig skildring av hendelsen med Peter:

Straks etter fikk han disiplene til å gå i båten og dra i forveien over til den andre siden, mens han selv sendte folket av sted. Da han hadde gjort det, gikk han opp i fjellet for å være for seg selv og be. Da kvelden kom, var han der alene. Båten var allerede langt fra land, og den kjempet seg fram i bølgene, for det var motvind. Men i den fjerde nattevakt kom han til dem gående på sjøen. Da disiplene fikk se ham der han gikk på vannet, ble de skrekkslagne. «Det er et gjenferd!» sa de og skrek av angst. Men i det samme talte Jesus til dem: «Vær ved godt mot! Det er jeg, vær ikke redde!» Da sa Peter til ham: «Herre, er det deg, så si at jeg skal komme til deg på vannet.» «Kom!» sa Jesus. Peter steg ut av båten og gikk på vannet bort til Jesus. Men da han så hvor hardt det blåste, ble han redd. Han begynte å synke, og ropte: «Herre, berg meg!» Straks rakte Jesus hånden ut og grep fatt i ham og sa: «Du lite troende – hvorfor tvilte du?»

Enten så sviktet Jesus sin magi fordi Peter ble redd, eller så tålte ikke isen Peter.

 

En alternativ (og fornuftig) måte å lese denne beretningen på vil da kunne være at Peter forsøkte å nå Jesus, Peter ble nervøs da han var gått ut av båten og stod på den tynne isen med vindkastene i ryggen. Peters usikre gange gjorde at isen brast under ham og Peter falt igjennom eller var nær ved å dette i vannet. Han ropte og skrek om hjelp, og Jesus reddet ham.

 

Hva du vil velge å tro på får bli opp til deg, men om du fortsatt synes det er ufattelig dumt å hevde noe slikt så vil jeg mer enn gjerne høre hvorfor du finner noe magisk mer sannsynlig. Husk at selv om Jesus ikke tok i bruk magien her, så betyr ikke det at han ikke kunne ha gjort det

[pumba50]

Hvorfor skulle det være så vanskelig å tro at dette virkelig var noe utenomjordisk og stort, når det er så mange andre ting i bibelen som også handler om utemomjordiske ting, som det å fly fra jorden og til himmelen. Jesus fløy. Skal vi begynne å diskutere om det haglet og at han klatret på hagleklumpene opp til himmelen?

 

Det bilr for dumt. Enten må boka være eventyr eller så må dette ha vært en stor mann, for å si det mildt.

[Bamsemumsen]

Akkurat, der har man det. Man kan fundere på hvordan Jesus gikk på vannet, for det er vanskelig. Det som er enda vanskeligere, det er å dø og så stå opp igjen. Diskuter det, heller. Det er ikke mulighvis man ikke er gudommelig. Og etter min mening så slutter kristendommen her, for det er ikke mulig.

 

Kristne må gjerne TRO at Jesus gjorde dette fordi det står i ei forbanna bok, men det gjør det ikke sant av den grunn.

[rtr]

Joda vi kan godt diskutere oppstandelsen og haggelklatring, men selv om oppstandelsen er et spørsmål om tro og man da muligens kan dikte opp omtrent hva som helst så ville det kanskje være noe mer interessant å se om det finnes noen litt mer jordnære forklaringer.

 

Under her så finner dere noen av de forklaringene som er der ute.

 

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

Jesus' resurrection:

Some non-miraculous explanations for the biblical stories

 

About resurrection:

The Bible teaches that Jesus was executed by the occupying Roman Army at the time of a Passover in Jerusalem. Most theologians believe that this happened during the springtime of either 30 or 33 CE. A common belief is that he died on a Friday afternoon and was resurrected sometime before sunrise on the following Sunday morning. This was when, according to the Gospels, Mary Magdalene (alone or in the company of other women; the gospels differ) visited the tomb. Most, but not all, Christians believe that he was resurrected (either under his own power or as a result of God's intervention) in his original body.

 

When normal people die, their heart stops pumping blood through their brain. Brain death occurs, and various degenerative processes soon begin; the body starts to rot. The processes are irreversible; they never come back to life. According to the gospels, Jesus remained dead for perhaps 33 hours or more -- from Friday afternoon until early on Sunday morning. This would have been a sufficient interval to "leave no doubt as to the reality of His death." 1 Yet, he was described as having returned to life, leaving the tomb, and subsequently appearing before various groups of his followers. This, of course, would be a miracle.

 

Ever since the first century CE, alternative explanations have been offered to account for the stories in the Gospels. Muslims, for example, believe that Jesus' crucifixion never happened. Rather, another individual was executed in Jesus' place.

 

Alternative explanations have been promoted by individuals who deny the resurrection. They believe that most, but not all, of the components of the gospel stories are correct: that Jesus was actually hung on a stake or cross, and was believed to have died. He was removed and taken away by his supporters. But other components are believed to be myth, fiction, and perhaps a pious fraud.

 

Some alternative scenarios are:

 

Swoon Theory: Jesus did not die; he only became unconscious on the cross. He was removed by a few of his followers, laid in the tomb, and left. He recovered there, and later appeared to his followers. Afterwards, he might have sneaked away and continued to live on in secret. He would have feared persecution from Jewish groups or the Roman authorities if he were discovered to be still alive. His followers may not have been aware of his recovery. They adopted the story of his resurrection as the most likely explanation of his apparent death and reappearance.

 

Some thoughts:

► The Roman Army had a quite efficient executing procedures. The soldiers in charge of the death squad would have themselves been sentenced to crucifixion if they had let one of the convicted criminals live. Many historians feel that It is unlikely that they would have been fooled by an unconscious victim.

► Normally, a crucifixion takes many days of agony before the victim dies. Jesus was only on the cross for a matter of hours. It is conceivable that he could have survived a few hours of exposure without dying.

► Medical science in 1st century Palestine was very primitive. Some people had been known to have entered a coma, appeared to have died, and recovered days later. Thus, a Jewish tradition was established in which the deceased's body was set in a tomb before sundown on the day of their death, and visited a few days later to make certain that the body had truly died. Decomposition of the body would be very obvious by that time, considering the high ambient temperature during a Palestinian springtime. If doctors could be fooled by a coma, perhaps the Roman Soldiers might have been also.

► The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that if Jesus was placed in "a sealed sepulcher for thirty-six hours, in an atmosphere poisoned by the exhalations of a hundred pounds of spices," that the environment alone would have caused his death. 1 However, we only know the maximum length of time that Jesus was presumably in the tomb: from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. Nobody knows how long he would have been actually exposed to the spices. He might have emerged from the tomb after a short interval, and the tomb only found to be empty some 33 hours later.

 

Imposition theory: Jesus died on the cross. His body was laid in the grave and later stolen by some of his followers and buried elsewhere. He was never resurrected.

 

Some thoughts:

► Matthew 28:12-14 described how the Jewish elders promoted this theory. "...they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you." Some suggest that this passage never happened. If the soldiers were found to have fallen asleep on the job, they would have been executed. No amount of money would persuade them to run that risk.

► Critics of this theory have suggested that his disciples appeared to be discouraged and disillusioned by Jesus' arrest and death. Something changed them so that they quickly became vigorous proselytizers, totally committed to the spreading the gospel message, in spite of the personal hazards involved. The critics suggest that this change could not have happened as the result of a lie.

► It is conceivable that only a small number of Jesus' supporters could have arranged for the body to be removed -- perhaps as few as one person, with some hired help. The removal of the body could have been done in secret without the rest of Jesus' disciples finding out. The followers could have experienced a mass hallucination, and believed that they had seen and met the resurrected Jesus.

 

Vision theory: The empty tomb, Jesus' appearance to his female followers, and his later meeting with his male disciples and others were visions or mass hallucinations. The disciples were familiar with the concept of resurrection from the grave, because of certain passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. So, they would have been anticipating Jesus return from the dead. His death would have come as a shock to them; they might not have been willing to accept it as a permanent fact. Perhaps Mary Magdalene had a vision or hallucination in which she mistook Jesus for the gardener. "What she believed that she had seen, others immediately believed that they must see. Their expectations were fulfilled, and the conviction seized the members of the early Church that the Lord had really risen from the dead." The Catholic Encyclopedia criticizes this theory. Their most convincing argument is that "visions such as the critics suppose have never been known to last long, while some of Christ's manifestations lasted a considerable period." The authors of the Encyclopedia note: "that the manifestations were made to numbers [of people] at the same instant." 1 They deny the possibility of mass hallucinations.

 

Modernist View: In the early 20th century, some Catholic modernists suggested that: "the entrance into life immortal of one risen from the dead is not subject to observation; it is a supernatural, hyper-historical fact, not capable of historical proof. The proofs alleged for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are inadequate; the empty sepulchre is only an indirect argument, while the apparitions of the risen Christ are open to suspicion on a priori grounds, being sensible impressions of a supernatural reality; and they are doubtful evidence from a critical point of view, on account of the discrepancies in the various Scriptural narratives and the mixed character of the detail connected with the apparitions." 1 In 1907, Pope Pius X issued his Decree Lamentabili (a.k.a. the Syllabus of Pius X). In it, he condemned 65 beliefs promoted by modernists, including this one. Three years later, he required all Catholic clergy to take an "Oath Against Modernism" which remained in force until 1967.

 

The Reserpine theory: Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist at Laurentian University in Sudbury, ON Canada, developed another miracle-free explanation of the resurrection story. While experimenting on rats, he noted that when the animals were physically restrained and injected with reserpine -- or similar drugs -- their body temperature would decrease rapidly and they would be appear to have died. Three days later, they revived on their own. Presumably, a similar reaction would happen in other mammals. Of course, it would be impossible on ethical grounds to conduct a similar experiment on humans. Persinger speculates that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) may have consumed either reserpine or a similar drug. This might have happened at the Last Supper, or when he was offered a sponge containing a liquid while on the cross. It is generally acknowledged, at least by some mainline and most liberal theologians, that John the Baptist had been a member of the Essene religious group. There is some evidence that the Essenes used psychoactive drugs in their rituals. Perhaps they had found reserpine, a drug which is has a plant origin. Yeshua certainly was restrained on the cross. The soldiers could have believed that he had died, and released the body, only to have Yeshua spontaneously recover a day and a half later in the tomb. 2,3

 

Some thoughts:

► One problem with this theory is that Yeshua is said to have returned to life within something like 33 hours after his apparent death. But the rat experiment showed a three day period between apparent death and apparent resurrection. However, this difference could merely be due to the difference between the physiology of rats and humans.

► The Catholic Encyclopedia's suggestion would make Yeshua's recovery unlikely. They speculate that hundreds of pounds of spices would have so poisoned the atmosphere that it would have killed Yeshua, even as he was still unconscious.

 

The myth theory: Jay Ingram, host of the Daily Planet show on the Canadian Discovery Channel suggests a much simpler possibility: Referring to the research by Persinger, he said "This article is another in a long tradition of seeking natural explanations for the supernatural: The Star of Bethlehem was a conjunction of planets; a tidal wave accompanying a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean explains the parting of the Red sea...Just argue that the [resurrection] story was made up by the creative authors of the Gospels and leave it at that." The myth theory would require that the primitive Christian movements were based upon a lie. As the argument against the Imposition Theory, described above, shows, this is open to criticism. However, many Pagan religions in the region taught a risen god-man as savior, and their followers totally believed in the story.

 

Midrash interpretation: In his book: "Resurrection, Myth or Reality? A Bishops Search for the Origins of Christianity," Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong suggests that the resurrection story should not be interpreted literally. Rather, it become meaningful when interpreted using midrash -- a Jewish literary device in which supernatural events are explained symbolically and gain meaning by being tied to ancient Jewish historical happenings. 4 For example, many liberal Christians believe that the mass killing of Bethlehem infants by Herod circa 4 BCE is unrelated to a real event. If it were, it would have been recorded in the secular literature of the time. Interpreted with Midrash, it reflects the earlier story in the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Pharaoh attempted to murder Moses and all of the male Hebrew newborns. Similarly, Mary and Joseph's flight to Egypt never actually happened; the story is an attempt to link an event Jesus' life with Moses' Exodus from Egypt. According to Bishop Spong, the story of the resurrection was not a supernatural incident in which Yeshua of Nazareth was bodily restored to life in 1st century CE Palestine. Derek Miller, in reviewing Bishop Spong's book explained that Jesus' disciples "...understood that the spirit of Jesus transcended death because the way Jesus died was exactly like they way he lived. He gave his life to others and for others. He loved wastefully and selflessly. In that living and dying, the disciples concluded that Jesus revealed the meaning of God....God is the meaning that is present in the face of fate, tragedy, and undeserved pain. God cannot be seen in Jesus' escape from death at Easter until God is first seen in the crucified one who gives life as he dies, who offers forgiveness as he is victimized, who shows love as he is hated." 5 It was this understanding that converted Jesus' followers from a hopelessly demoralized group into a committed, dedicated religious movement who proclaimed "He is risen!" and "Death cannot contain him!" In a very real sense, interpreted with Midrash, the stories explain that even physical death could not confine Jesus' message.

 

 

References:

1. "Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Catholic Encylopedia, New Advent, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

 

2. Michael Persinger "Science and the Resurrection: Christ's Alleged Resurrection—Experimental Evidence for an Alternative Hypothesis to Being Raised From the Dead by God." Skeptic magazine, Volume 9, #4,

 

3. Jay Ingram, "Resurrection skeptic goes to baroque extremes," The Toronto Star, 2003-APR-13, Page A18

 

4. J.S. Spong, "Resurrection, Myth or Reality? A Bishops Search for the Origins of Christianity", Harper San Francisco, CA, (Reprinted, 1995) Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store

 

5. Derek Miller, "What Easter is All About: A Review of John Shelby Spong's "Resurrection: Myth or Reality?" at: http://www.whosoever.org/v6i5/derek.html

[pumba50]

Joda vi kan godt diskutere oppstandelsen og haggelklatring, men selv om oppstandelsen er et spørsmål om tro og man da muligens kan dikte opp omtrent hva som helst så ville det kanskje være noe mer interessant å se om det finnes noen litt mer jordnære forklaringer.

 

Under her så finner dere noen av de forklaringene som er der ute.

 

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

Jesus' resurrection:

Some non-miraculous explanations for the biblical stories

 

About resurrection:

The Bible teaches that Jesus was executed by the occupying Roman Army at the time of a Passover in Jerusalem. Most theologians believe that this happened during the springtime of either 30 or 33 CE. A common belief is that he died on a Friday afternoon and was resurrected sometime before sunrise on the following Sunday morning. This was when, according to the Gospels, Mary Magdalene (alone or in the company of other women; the gospels differ) visited the tomb. Most, but not all, Christians believe that he was resurrected (either under his own power or as a result of God's intervention) in his original body.

 

When normal people die, their heart stops pumping blood through their brain. Brain death occurs, and various degenerative processes soon begin; the body starts to rot. The processes are irreversible; they never come back to life. According to the gospels, Jesus remained dead for perhaps 33 hours or more -- from Friday afternoon until early on Sunday morning. This would have been a sufficient interval to "leave no doubt as to the reality of His death." 1 Yet, he was described as having returned to life, leaving the tomb, and subsequently appearing before various groups of his followers. This, of course, would be a miracle.

 

Ever since the first century CE, alternative explanations have been offered to account for the stories in the Gospels. Muslims, for example, believe that Jesus' crucifixion never happened. Rather, another individual was executed in Jesus' place.

 

Alternative explanations have been promoted by individuals who deny the resurrection. They believe that most, but not all, of the components of the gospel stories are correct: that Jesus was actually hung on a stake or cross, and was believed to have died. He was removed and taken away by his supporters. But other components are believed to be myth, fiction, and perhaps a pious fraud.

 

Some alternative scenarios are:

 

Swoon Theory: Jesus did not die; he only became unconscious on the cross. He was removed by a few of his followers, laid in the tomb, and left. He recovered there, and later appeared to his followers. Afterwards, he might have sneaked away and continued to live on in secret. He would have feared persecution from Jewish groups or the Roman authorities if he were discovered to be still alive. His followers may not have been aware of his recovery. They adopted the story of his resurrection as the most likely explanation of his apparent death and reappearance.

 

Some thoughts:

► The Roman Army had a quite efficient executing procedures. The soldiers in charge of the death squad would have themselves been sentenced to crucifixion if they had let one of the convicted criminals live. Many historians feel that It is unlikely that they would have been fooled by an unconscious victim.

► Normally, a crucifixion takes many days of agony before the victim dies. Jesus was only on the cross for a matter of hours. It is conceivable that he could have survived a few hours of exposure without dying.

► Medical science in 1st century Palestine was very primitive. Some people had been known to have entered a coma, appeared to have died, and recovered days later. Thus, a Jewish tradition was established in which the deceased's body was set in a tomb before sundown on the day of their death, and visited a few days later to make certain that the body had truly died. Decomposition of the body would be very obvious by that time, considering the high ambient temperature during a Palestinian springtime. If doctors could be fooled by a coma, perhaps the Roman Soldiers might have been also.

► The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that if Jesus was placed in "a sealed sepulcher for thirty-six hours, in an atmosphere poisoned by the exhalations of a hundred pounds of spices," that the environment alone would have caused his death. 1 However, we only know the maximum length of time that Jesus was presumably in the tomb: from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning. Nobody knows how long he would have been actually exposed to the spices. He might have emerged from the tomb after a short interval, and the tomb only found to be empty some 33 hours later.

 

Imposition theory: Jesus died on the cross. His body was laid in the grave and later stolen by some of his followers and buried elsewhere. He was never resurrected.

 

Some thoughts:

► Matthew 28:12-14 described how the Jewish elders promoted this theory. "...they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you." Some suggest that this passage never happened. If the soldiers were found to have fallen asleep on the job, they would have been executed. No amount of money would persuade them to run that risk.

► Critics of this theory have suggested that his disciples appeared to be discouraged and disillusioned by Jesus' arrest and death. Something changed them so that they quickly became vigorous proselytizers, totally committed to the spreading the gospel message, in spite of the personal hazards involved. The critics suggest that this change could not have happened as the result of a lie.

► It is conceivable that only a small number of Jesus' supporters could have arranged for the body to be removed -- perhaps as few as one person, with some hired help. The removal of the body could have been done in secret without the rest of Jesus' disciples finding out. The followers could have experienced a mass hallucination, and believed that they had seen and met the resurrected Jesus.

 

Vision theory: The empty tomb, Jesus' appearance to his female followers, and his later meeting with his male disciples and others were visions or mass hallucinations. The disciples were familiar with the concept of resurrection from the grave, because of certain passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. So, they would have been anticipating Jesus return from the dead. His death would have come as a shock to them; they might not have been willing to accept it as a permanent fact. Perhaps Mary Magdalene had a vision or hallucination in which she mistook Jesus for the gardener. "What she believed that she had seen, others immediately believed that they must see. Their expectations were fulfilled, and the conviction seized the members of the early Church that the Lord had really risen from the dead." The Catholic Encyclopedia criticizes this theory. Their most convincing argument is that "visions such as the critics suppose have never been known to last long, while some of Christ's manifestations lasted a considerable period." The authors of the Encyclopedia note: "that the manifestations were made to numbers [of people] at the same instant." 1 They deny the possibility of mass hallucinations.

 

Modernist View: In the early 20th century, some Catholic modernists suggested that: "the entrance into life immortal of one risen from the dead is not subject to observation; it is a supernatural, hyper-historical fact, not capable of historical proof. The proofs alleged for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are inadequate; the empty sepulchre is only an indirect argument, while the apparitions of the risen Christ are open to suspicion on a priori grounds, being sensible impressions of a supernatural reality; and they are doubtful evidence from a critical point of view, on account of the discrepancies in the various Scriptural narratives and the mixed character of the detail connected with the apparitions." 1 In 1907, Pope Pius X issued his Decree Lamentabili (a.k.a. the Syllabus of Pius X). In it, he condemned 65 beliefs promoted by modernists, including this one. Three years later, he required all Catholic clergy to take an "Oath Against Modernism" which remained in force until 1967.

 

The Reserpine theory: Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist at Laurentian University in Sudbury, ON Canada, developed another miracle-free explanation of the resurrection story. While experimenting on rats, he noted that when the animals were physically restrained and injected with reserpine -- or similar drugs -- their body temperature would decrease rapidly and they would be appear to have died. Three days later, they revived on their own. Presumably, a similar reaction would happen in other mammals. Of course, it would be impossible on ethical grounds to conduct a similar experiment on humans. Persinger speculates that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) may have consumed either reserpine or a similar drug. This might have happened at the Last Supper, or when he was offered a sponge containing a liquid while on the cross. It is generally acknowledged, at least by some mainline and most liberal theologians, that John the Baptist had been a member of the Essene religious group. There is some evidence that the Essenes used psychoactive drugs in their rituals. Perhaps they had found reserpine, a drug which is has a plant origin. Yeshua certainly was restrained on the cross. The soldiers could have believed that he had died, and released the body, only to have Yeshua spontaneously recover a day and a half later in the tomb. 2,3

 

Some thoughts:

► One problem with this theory is that Yeshua is said to have returned to life within something like 33 hours after his apparent death. But the rat experiment showed a three day period between apparent death and apparent resurrection. However, this difference could merely be due to the difference between the physiology of rats and humans.

► The Catholic Encyclopedia's suggestion would make Yeshua's recovery unlikely. They speculate that hundreds of pounds of spices would have so poisoned the atmosphere that it would have killed Yeshua, even as he was still unconscious.

 

The myth theory: Jay Ingram, host of the Daily Planet show on the Canadian Discovery Channel suggests a much simpler possibility: Referring to the research by Persinger, he said "This article is another in a long tradition of seeking natural explanations for the supernatural: The Star of Bethlehem was a conjunction of planets; a tidal wave accompanying a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean explains the parting of the Red sea...Just argue that the [resurrection] story was made up by the creative authors of the Gospels and leave it at that." The myth theory would require that the primitive Christian movements were based upon a lie. As the argument against the Imposition Theory, described above, shows, this is open to criticism. However, many Pagan religions in the region taught a risen god-man as savior, and their followers totally believed in the story.

 

Midrash interpretation: In his book: "Resurrection, Myth or Reality? A Bishops Search for the Origins of Christianity," Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong suggests that the resurrection story should not be interpreted literally. Rather, it become meaningful when interpreted using midrash -- a Jewish literary device in which supernatural events are explained symbolically and gain meaning by being tied to ancient Jewish historical happenings. 4 For example, many liberal Christians believe that the mass killing of Bethlehem infants by Herod circa 4 BCE is unrelated to a real event. If it were, it would have been recorded in the secular literature of the time. Interpreted with Midrash, it reflects the earlier story in the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Pharaoh attempted to murder Moses and all of the male Hebrew newborns. Similarly, Mary and Joseph's flight to Egypt never actually happened; the story is an attempt to link an event Jesus' life with Moses' Exodus from Egypt.  According to Bishop Spong, the story of the resurrection was not a supernatural incident in which Yeshua of Nazareth was bodily restored to life  in 1st century CE Palestine. Derek Miller, in reviewing Bishop Spong's book explained that Jesus' disciples "...understood that the spirit of Jesus transcended death because the way Jesus died was exactly like they way he lived. He gave his life to others and for others. He loved wastefully and selflessly. In that living and dying, the disciples concluded that Jesus revealed the meaning of God....God is the meaning that is present in the face of fate, tragedy, and undeserved pain. God cannot be seen in Jesus' escape from death at Easter until God is first seen in the crucified one who gives life as he dies, who offers forgiveness as he is victimized, who shows love as he is hated." 5 It was this understanding that converted Jesus' followers from a hopelessly demoralized group into a committed, dedicated religious movement who proclaimed "He is risen!" and "Death cannot contain him!" In a very real sense, interpreted with Midrash, the stories explain that even physical death could not confine Jesus' message.

 

 

References:

1. "Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Catholic Encylopedia, New Advent, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

 

2. Michael Persinger  "Science and the Resurrection: Christ's Alleged Resurrection—Experimental Evidence for an Alternative Hypothesis to Being Raised From the Dead by God." Skeptic magazine, Volume 9, #4,

 

3. Jay Ingram, "Resurrection skeptic goes to baroque extremes," The Toronto Star, 2003-APR-13, Page A18

 

4. J.S. Spong, "Resurrection, Myth or Reality? A Bishops Search for the Origins of Christianity", Harper San Francisco, CA, (Reprinted, 1995) Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store

 

5. Derek Miller, "What Easter is All About: A Review of John Shelby Spong's "Resurrection: Myth or Reality?" at: http://www.whosoever.org/v6i5/derek.html

9001317[/snapback]

Av alle eventyr som fins i verden, så velger filosofene og forskerne ut det verste av dem alle og skal prøve å finne relativitet til virkeligheten. Hvorfor er det bestandig slik? Slik er det også med ateister. Ateister tar virkelig bibelen seriøst.

[Bamsemumsen]

Det er jo en temmelig seriøs bok da, og det gjør den enda teitere.

[perpyro]

Det har seg vel slik at det levde en mann ved navn Jesus på den tida som hevdet at han var guds sønn.

 

Derfor er det interresant å finne ut av det som egentlig hendte med denne høyst sansynlige personen, og da er jo naturlige forklaringer på hendelsene ganske så naturlig og trekke fram.

Det blei jo skrevet ned og mange tror på det.

[kjetil02]

Det kan virke som hele denne diskusjonen for lenge siden har kokt ned til noe sånt som "det står i boka, men vi kan likevel ikke vite om det er sant". Anbefaler dere å lese "Misquoting Jesus" (norsk: Jesus feilsitert), som er en kildekritikk av Nytestamentet.

[Frohman]

Var Jesus stormannsgal?

 

På Jesus sin tid krydde det av mennesker som mente at de var messias. Jesus gjorde noe som de andre ikke klarte, så jeg vil si at han var ekstremt intelligent og en god svindler. Hadde han levd på denne tiden hadde han hatt 103 forskjellige navn og bodd i Nigeria.