Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[Thief]

I see. To you, hope and logic are the same
thing. This explains a lot.

Sorry-ah, I am not about to follow your lead, on
anything.

hope can be dealt by logic

and in this thread.....logic is the only hope

 

[Thief]

I figure if a person cannot talk straight, they cannot
think straight.

it is rumored......Moses stammered

 

[Subduction Zone]

The conclusion that it is a fraud is based on the carbon-14 dating and the blood tainted to be painting rather than any organic fluid. If there are any other fact apart from these please point them out so we can address them together as one. Since we are in the season of PASSOVER this is the best time to prove our Lord died and rose again.

That evidence is more than enough to prove that it is fake.

 

[Thief]

and that Roman fellow.....Caligula....
he also stammered

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read the New Testament. It exists, it is evidence, so, prove it wrong. Of course, you cannot.

ow boy... so many wrong while using so few words....

1. the bible is a collection of the claims. Claims require evidence. Claims aren't evidence.

2. the burden of proof is on the one making the claims... your nonsense isn't true by default "until someone can prove it wrong". you need to support your claims. Asking others to disprove them instead, is a cop-out to avoid or hide the fact that all you have are bare claims with no evidence.

You have opinions, which aren´t evidence, and you assume that since no one has been raised from the dead in a context you accept, it hasn´t happened.

Your assumption is wrong too.

No.

We go by the evidence.

And the actual evidence tells us that there is no documented verified case, at all, of anyone ever coming back to life. In fact, if that were to happen, it would LITERALLY be a violation / suspension of natural laws. FYI: that's what is meant when something is being called "impossible": that for it to happen anyway, natural law must be violated or suspended. That is literally what "impossible" means.

So let's look at the facts here....

On the one side, we have all the science and evidence telling us that it is impossible for a dead person to get resurected.

On the other hand, we have a bronze-age book written by sheepherders in the bronze age who didn't even realise that the earth orbits the sun, making magical claims about this "god in human form" who did all kinds of magic tricks one of which was coming back to life - and that in a day and age where superstition pretty much creeped into ALL aspects of life.

So really, we just have anecdotes and bare claims from biased people stemming from an age where superstition was the natural order of the day and scientific ignorance reigned.

So what seems more likely...........

That these biased superstitious scientific ignoramouses were correct and that the laws of physics/nature were broken/suspended/violated?

Or that they were just wrong?


The answer seems painfully obvious to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually there is evidence. So, people don´t come back to life, ever. That could be a false statement depending upon what you believe constitutes death.

A kid fell through the ice on a lake, drowned, and was dead when he was pulled out almost half an hour later, yet he was resuscitated and is alive today. Did he come back to life from the dead ?

Dead people, as far as you know, don´t come back to life. A much smaller circle than the one you were trying to paint.

Reanimation and resurection really aren't the same thing.

And frankly, if I were a christian, I'ld pretty much consider suggesting them being the same to borderline blasphemy

 

[Audie]

it is rumored......Moses stammered

And it all fizzles down to such silliness as that.
I do wish you well.

 

[Thief]

And it all fizzles down to such silliness as that.
I do wish you well.

hmmmm…...wishful thinking....

 

[Audie]

hmmmm…...wishful thinking....

It seems the only kind of thinking you understand.
I was just trying to be nice but if you want to flip
it around then I take it back.

Oh, and in Amelica, when someone says
"I wish you well" it generally means they
"wish" to exit the conversation.

 

[Thief]

It seems the only kind of thinking you understand.
I was just trying to be nice but if you want to flip
it around then I take it back.

Oh, and in Amelica, when someone says
"I wish you well" it generally means they
"wish" to exit the conversation.

it seemed more of a dismissal on your part

if you want to go.....go

I think I'll stick for the debate

 

[Katzpur]

I believe it, I'm sure Masons and LDS folks have things in common. I can not say f Masons beliefs in the occult are negative or good because they keep thing secret,so i don't really know what they believe except that some of it is yes mystical.

Many Christians think its mandatory to be Christian to be Mason, it is to be Mason, but not to be Scottish Rite or Shriner.I worked for the Shriners fundraising on the phone for them.They were really nice folks and they have very very good nonprofit charity work going on.

But like I said I don't really know what they believe. They did tell the thing about not having to Christian to be Shriner or Scottish Rite thouhg, you have to believe in a God of some sort thats it.

Joseph Smith was a Mason. There is no question about that and no effort has ever been made by the Church to cover up this fact. It's not as if being a Mason were some kind of a crime, for crying out loud. Among the Freemasons in history, Joseph Smith is not in bad company. His masonic brothers include George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Aaron Burr, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Gerald R. Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Adwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Edward Jenner, Joseph Lister, Alexander Fleming, "Count" Basie, John Wayne, Jack Dempsey, Henry Ford, Walter P. Chrysler, Nathan Meyer Rothschild, John Jacob Astor, Charles Hilton, Colonel Harland Sanders, Sir Winston Churchwill, Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Jonathon Swift, Oscar Wilde, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Mark Twain and numerous English kings.

Why Joseph Smith's involvement with Freemason is seen as such a negative is beyond me. I'm also perpetually baffled by people who insist on making comparisons between the LDS temple endowment and Mason ceremonies when they have no firsthand knowledge of either one! For someone to be able to speak authoritatively about the links between Mormonism and Freemasonry, he'd have to have better qualifications than whirlingmerc does. The following link is to an article by someone who is both LDS and a Mason. It explains the connection between the two very well:

The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry.

By the way, if anyone can explain to me what the hell any of this has to do with the OP, I'd be more than grateful for the information, as I am obviously oblivious to the link.

 

[Audie]

Joseph Smith was a Mason. There is no question about that and no effort has ever been made by the Church to cover up this fact. It's not as if being a Mason were some kind of a crime, for crying out loud. Among the Freemasons in history, Joseph Smith is not in bad company. His masonic brothers include George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Aaron Burr, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Gerald R. Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Adwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Edward Jenner, Joseph Lister, Alexander Fleming, "Count" Basie, John Wayne, Jack Dempsey, Henry Ford, Walter P. Chrysler, Nathan Meyer Rothschild, John Jacob Astor, Charles Hilton, Colonel Harland Sanders, Sir Winston Churchwill, Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Jonathon Swift, Oscar Wilde, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Mark Twain and numerous English kings.

Why Joseph Smith's involvement with Freemason is seen as such a negative is beyond me. I'm also perpetually baffled by people who insist on making comparisons between the LDS temple endowment and Mason ceremonies when they have no firsthand knowledge of either one! For someone to be able to speak authoritatively about the links between Mormonism and Freemasonry, he'd have to do better than whirlingmerc did. The following link is to an article by someone who is both LDS an a Mason. It explains the connection between the two very well:

The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry.

By the way, if anyone can explain to me what the hell any of this has to do with the OP, I'd be more than grateful for the information, as I am obviously oblivious to the link.

How do I give you two "winners"?

 

[lukethethird]

No. The bible is a collection of claims. That claims that require evidence. That evidence must necessarily be external to the bible. Unless off course, you don't mind circular reasoning.



Doesn't matter either way. The bible is the claim. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

Everything is evidence of something, including The Bible, you can't get around that simple fact. It depends entirely as to what is trying to be proven as to what kind of evidence it is.

 

[Audie]

it seemed more of a dismissal on your part

if you want to go.....go

I think I'll stick for the debate

Must you try to get the last word with a woman?

Here is a compromise-a man's words, posted by me.

“In a few days the Eldorado Expedition went into the patient wilderness, that closed upon it as the sea closes over a diver. Long afterwards the news came that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals. They, no doubt, like the rest of us, found what they deserved. I did not inquire.”

 

[Prince Mthembu]

That evidence is more than enough to prove that it is fake.

However to the contrary some scientists have found the blood type AB in the traces which matches the one found in the Sudarium of Oviedo (proving the blood not to be paint), and it turns out there was also another shroud in Constantinople during the 12th century. If the 2 are proved to be one then the carbon dating is wrong. See below from historycollection.co

"There are several remarkable details regarding the shroud that suggests that not only is it not a Medieval fake, but it can be reliably placed within what is known about first-century Palestine. For one, Jewish law required that a body had to be wrapped in linen cloth that had not been mixed with wool. The Shroud of Turin is made of linen, and though there are traces of cotton in it, there is no wool. It also corresponds precisely with the measuring unit that was used by first-century Jews, the cubit. It is exactly two cubits wide and eight cubits long."

Just as much as the bible charges us to "prove all things" (1 Thess 5:21) it also charges us to make an effort in seeking truth (Proverbs 2:2-4), I also beg you to seek for yourself without the distraction of others and their hindrance that which is genuine to point you to God.

 

[Audie]

Everything is evidence of something, including The Bible, you can't get around that simple fact. It depends entirely as to what is trying to be proven as to what kind of evidence it is.

Yep, there is evidence, and there is evidence.
"Look a bird! That is evidence!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

However to the contrary some scientists have found the blood type AB in the traces which matches the one found in the Sudarium of Oviedo (proving the blood not to be paint), and it turns out there was also another shroud in Constantinople during the 12th century. If the 2 are proved to be one then the carbon dating is wrong. See below from historycollection.co

"There are several remarkable details regarding the shroud that suggests that not only is it not a Medieval fake, but it can be reliably placed within what is known about first-century Palestine. For one, Jewish law required that a body had to be wrapped in linen cloth that had not been mixed with wool. The Shroud of Turin is made of linen, and though there are traces of cotton in it, there is no wool. It also corresponds precisely with the measuring unit that was used by first-century Jews, the cubit. It is exactly two cubits wide and eight cubits long."

Just as much as the bible charges us to "prove all things" (1 Thess 5:21) it also charges us to make an effort in seeking truth (Proverbs 2:2-4), I also beg you to seek for yourself without the distraction of others and their hindrance that which is genuine to point you to God.

Please supply a reliable source. That is an extremely dubious claim. Do you realize that there was a dishonest scientist on the panel that studied the shroud? The one denier out there claimed to have saved some samples himself. But since this was a highly respected religious relic going in all of the scientists promised to first work together and that there would be no private samples. If they all took snippets home they would have decimated the shroud. Claims from that one scientist are not worth much. You need to find something done by the group to be of any value at all. A person that went back on his word when the findings disagreed with him can't be trusted.

From all that I have seen it clearly is a fake. I have always thought that people whose faith relies upon a fraud was rather weak. Why tell us that you have a weak faith? Why not accept the fact that this was a fake? A fake for a belief does not refute that belief. In fact it can harm it. For example the Piltdown Man was a fake. It appeared to support evolution but not really. Just as the shroud appears to support the resurrection story, but not really. It in fact goes against what was written in the Bible if one read the accounts. Creationists still try to incorrectly use the Piltdown man fraud against the theory of evolution, even though it never relied upon it. At least atheists are brighter in this regard. They recognize the obvious fact that the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, but they do not use that fraud as evidence against Christianity.

 

[Jos]

I don't expect you to know since you do not know Jesus, but I know Him.

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

What never made sense to me is the fact that God supposedly created humans in these fleshly bodies knowing all of the troubles and temptations that would come along with it yet blames humans and gets upset when they give in to their bodily desires? Why not create humans as spiritual beings in the first place so as avoid the partaking in the flesh in the first place?

 

[Audie]

Please supply a reliable source. That is an extremely dubious claim. Do you realize that there was a dishonest scientist on the panel that studied the shroud? The one denier out there claimed to have saved some samples himself. But since this was a highly respected religious relic going in all of the scientists promised to first work together and that there would be no private samples. If they all took snippets home they would have decimated the shroud. Claims from that one scientist are not worth much. You need to find something done by the group to be of any value at all. A person that went back on his word when the findings disagreed with him can't be trusted.

From all that I have seen it clearly is a fake. I have always thought that people whose faith relies upon a fraud was rather weak. Why tell us that you have a weak faith? Why not accept the fact that this was a fake? A fake for a belief does not refute that belief. In fact it can harm it. For example the Piltdown Man was a fake. It appeared to support evolution but not really. Just as the shroud appears to support the resurrection story, but not really. It in fact goes against what was written in the Bible if one read the accounts. Creationists still try to incorrectly use the Piltdown man fraud against the theory of evolution, even though it never relied upon it. At least atheists are brighter in this regard. They recognize the obvious fact that the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, but they do not use that fraud as evidence against Christianity.

Please explain in what way Piltdown was a "fraud".

Or the shroud, for that matter. Plz use terms
all terms correctly.

 

[Audie]

What never made sense to me is the fact that God supposedly created humans in these fleshly bodies knowing all of the troubles and temptations that would come along with it yet blames humans and gets upset when they give in to their bodily desires? Why not create humans as spiritual beings in the first place so as avoid the partaking in the flesh in the first place?

No designer with any kindness would have designed the
trigeminial nerve as it is.