The accepted common argument is that if Jesus did not literally resurrect, then the Bible is false and everything in it is questionable, right? But what if that is not true? I suggest that the striving or insistence on making Jesus literally true (or else) is a false paradigm, that arises from a desire to become immortal after literal death; and while it is somewhat obscured in the Bible, that makes one a meat eater, who requires literal facts to support their belief
Now i am not interested in quashing a discussion on it, but at the end of this discussion, what will the conclusion be? Will there be any consensus? Is one even required? By all means seek any evidence that you are able to discover, but at the same time have a clear definition of “evidence” imo, and possibly more importantly understand the reason you are seeking it.
I am invariably asked in meetings now—more often, recently—whether i believe in a literal resurrection, and my answer is kinda changing as we speak, mostly to suit my audience. Which i strongly dislike, bc it feels like pandering to me. There is a gap here in this discussion, that it is quite difficult to stand in or build a bridge across, i guess bc you cannot change ppls motivations? At least not easily;
The pov that if Jesus did not literally resurrect then Christianity is pointless is i guess a pretty common one, and we have even heard it repeated here. I was that guy for like forty years myself, so really im not interested in any condemnation of the perspective, but i would suggest that one be a bit more rigorous in their definitions on so existential a topic; evidence has rules, that one is of course free to accept or reject, but at least dont do so lightly imo.
Truth is established by witnesses, at least according to the Bible, so for instance the 500; is that corroborated anywhere else? If it is not, but it is still in the Bible, then understand what that likely means, imo; things that are written without a witness/corroboration are not untruths, necessarily, but they should be given a diff weight, if for no other reason than a lack of witnesses. They are in there only once for a reason iow, and since the authors understood the witnessing thing implicitly, they are likely trying to make a diff point than the one assumed.
Also, in all your searching for and requiring a literal resurrected Jesus, i would understand the parts of the Bible that must be ignored; which are many, starting with Jesus Himself telling us that many would come in His Name, and that they should be ignored. By all means read the Bible as though it were a journal, if you like, i mean i cant stop you, and at least youre reading the Bible, but imo understand that when i tell you that Yah Himself came down last night and appeared to me and a congregation of 500 other souls and explicitly told me to come make this post about questioning your motives and your definitions of legal terms, you still have no evidence for this.
I believe in Christ, and frankly adore the concept of a literal resurrection; should i then go stand and look up at the sky? Or what is it that would be recommended to me, in that case? Iow explore that too, ok; what is the end result or recommendation or whatever of holding the belief, and rejecting Buried with Him in death, raised to new life in Him, the resurrection that the Bible describes?
Bc i guess lotta ppl think they can maybe have both, but i tell you that they are night and day, ok
And this post should not be taken to mean that literal resurrection is untrue either, bc i dont know; i would welcome and be open to any new evidence on the matter, just read about some famous Indian girl who gave intimate details of her past life that were then corroborated, and idk what to make of that tbh; she wasnt a Christian though, so hmm, but the point is that we humans know virtually nothing even about the real world lol, so as much as i detest Magical Thinking, there is also a certain magic involved in life, that i guess i am not even qualified to comment on.