The Resurrection question

Jan 18, 2012, 10:16 AM |

Since Socrates placed knowledge as the central matter of concern for humankind, it is agreed here to use reason and logic. Of course, believers, ministers, and priests think the central concern to be belief and truth in fact.

One directive of logic is the explanation that figurative language found in the Four Gospels can and does lead to certain absurd claims.  The Evangelist's agree that Jesus was experienced alive after his execution by the Romans, through eye-witness accounts and direct visual experience.

Yet as we have learned much since about physical science and logic, one can conclude that experience, visual or other, is blind unless the data can reach the conceptual understanding: consult the German philos Kant. Also experience cannot attest for itself in problems of experiencing odd things like the primordial condition of the cosmos.

What happened that Easter morning in Jerusalem that year could have been a made-up fiction. The false story probably would have spread rapidly throughout the day. Were formal tests applied to these descriptions or did they run on in a surge of excitement?

A legal system other than the one the Rabbi's had in place did not exist to measure these stories. Thus, a story of such importance, the great Resurrection, did not have a high-school level foundation as to report and verification.  We must expect such for such a great event and have some way to access it. But there is nothing there.