Le caractère des témoins – Objections et réponses

Qu'en est-il de ceux qui disaient qu'il n'y avait pas de résurrection dans 1 Corinthiens 15?

If you read 1 Corinthiens 15, you will find that the argument centred on whether or not we rise from the dead: not whether Jesus had risen. Paul cites the accepted fact of Jesus’ resurrection as the primary evidence in support of his argument. Incidemment, textual analysis shows that 1 Corinthiens 15:3-7, detailing the resurrection appearances, are cited from a significantly older source than even Paul’s letter (itself dated at AD55); confirming yet again that the resurrection accounts, far from being later additions, have always been at the very centre of the Christian message.

Retour à l'article principal.

Resurrection was necessary to make him into a God, without which there would have been no new religion. Without a resurrection Jesus was just a man who died.

Curious then that every other major world religion has managed the trick without it! Jesus did not need to become a ‘God’ to get a following. In fact it would have been easier if he were not, as that would have been far more acceptable both to the Jews and to Caesar.

But you claim that without the resurrection Jesus is nothing. The way the story is told it falls to bits if Jesus wasn’t the son of God. Buddha and Mohammed were rather more careful.

It would only fall to bits because the NT says that he fait claim to be the Son of God and rise from the dead, etc. If that had not been the case he could easily have gained a following as a prophet, just as many others have done.

Retour à l'article principal.

Millions of Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. have also died rather than recant their faith…

Effectivement. They died for what they believed to be true. But if the disciples fabricated their accounts, then they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. It is very rare to find one man insane enough to do such a thing: but to do this they would all have had to be mad!

Retour à l'article principal.