Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[Audie]

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

You guys would have so much more credibility if
we did not constantly see you guys posting such
absurd nonsense when you post what you
know about science.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I would have way more respect for Christians if they would just say 'I believe this because our sacred text and traditions say so.' But for some reason, this is not adequate for them. They insist on trying to 'prove' the Bible using science (that they reject when it disagrees) or other philosophical systems.

 

[Audie]

I would have way more respect for Christians if they would just say 'I believe this because our sacred text and traditions say so.' But for some reason, this is not adequate for them. They insist on trying to 'prove' the Bible using science (that they reject when it disagrees) or other philosophical systems.

If any of them showed sign of knowing what they
are talking about re science, it might (might) help.*

Gibberish like "frozen mammoth prove water canopy
prove flood prove god" is just tooo ridiculous for words.

And shows plainly the standards for quality of
evidence applied to their other beliefs.

*actually, it would be incredibly exciting if someone
did actually come up with disproof of ToE, proof
og god, or any of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then too, it is widely noted that god is not into
providing proof.
Them xians try to have it both ways, sometimes.

Oh, plz provide a good source on how it is shown to be a fraud.

This is almost ancient history. The Catholic Church allowed a panel of scientists to inspect the shroud and run scientific tests on it. They dated three different spots and all of them gave a Middle Ages date for the shroud. This was a newsworthy event at the time:

Tests Show Shroud of Turin To Be Fraud, Scientist Hints

They all agreed on the findings and published. They also all agreed at the time that work on the shroud and samples had to be done together and openly to make the process have any validity. At least one scientist did not like this and supposedly did tests on materials that he had kept for himself. He republished years later with claims about his samples. The problem is that by going back on his word he effectively admitted to lying earlier. His results are not accepted. I could probably did those up for you if you wanted to see.

 

[Audie]

This is almost ancient history. The Catholic Church allowed a panel of scientists to inspect the shroud and run scientific tests on it. They dated three different spots and all of them gave a Middle Ages date for the shroud. This was a newsworthy event at the time:

Tests Show Shroud of Turin To Be Fraud, Scientist Hints

They all agreed on the findings and published. They also all agreed at the time that work on the shroud and samples had to be done together and openly to make the process have any validity. At least one scientist did not like this and supposedly did tests on materials that he had kept for himself. He republished years later with claims about his samples. The problem is that by going back on his word he effectively admitted to lying earlier. His results are not accepted. I could probably did those up for you if you wanted to see.

see pm

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

But you don't know him. You only have a book that is mixture of myth, history, poor morals, and some actually good spiritual advice. But there is so much chaff in the book that most tend to miss that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

see pm

pm?

 

[Riders]

Why shouldn't the resurrection of Christ be true? Many prophecies were fulfilled in detail by the birth, life, and death of Jesus, so why not the resurrection? There also were many witnesses who saw Him alive after the cross, including the disciples who had their lives completely turned around after seeing Him alive again and never recanted even though most eventually faced death for their testimony. Why would they suffer and die for something if they knew it was no more than a lie?

If Jesus had been raised from the dead as the new testament says with his wounds in tack so that doubting thomas could have to put his hand in his wounds he would have been a walking sack of butchered meat. He had been stabbed bleeding and his nail prints would be bleeding there's no scientific way.

 

[Riders]

I believe Jesus alone as fully human/fully God alone had the power to resurrect. Why should I doubt that the Creator of heaven and earth could rise from the dead? the scriptures are consistent and based in historical context and I find them to be reliable.



Sure, many humans have been willing to die for something they honestly believed in, but the difference is that the disciples of Jesus not only believed Jesus was dead, they KNEW He was dead because they saw Him die. My point is it was only seeing Him alive that changed their whole lives, understanding, and caused them to be willing to suffer and die because they knew He had risen from the grave.

The scriptures were written in a way that there was no way Paul or any of the other writers could have been the real writers and was written
between 30 and 100 years later then Christ and completely unreliable. All we have are copies of copies of copies.

 

[Riders]

Then why do Christians believe it? And not only Christians, but non-Christians believe in the resurrection. Look at all the people who celebrate Easter. If there was no proof that Jesus was ever placed in the tomb, I cannot understand why people were surprised He was not found there later.

Non Christians do not believe it, if you believe your a Christian.

 

[Riders]

The only physical evidence we have of Jesus is His burial shroud. Skeptics throw everything they have against it every year to try to disprove it's authenticity but it comes through.

Scientists still cannot identify the radiation that left the bodily imprint in this cloth though they have tried many times.

No thats been disproven too.

 

[Trailblazer]

Non Christians do not believe it, if you believe your a Christian.

I said that based upon some statistics that stated that only 19% of people in the United States are sure that the resurrection never happened. Since about 72% of the population is Christian, and only 19% of the population are sure that the resurrection did not happen, that means that about 9% of people who are not Christians think it is possible that the resurrection happened.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I said that based upon some statistics that stated that only 19% of people in the United States are sure that the resurrection never happened. Since about 72% of the population is Christian, and only 19% of the population are sure that the resurrection did not happen, that means that about 9% of people who are not Christians think it is possible that the resurrection happened.

I would want to see those statistics. 19% are 'sure' the resurrection never happened? I doubt that. More likely 'unsure.'

 

[Kilk1]

Is it.

Tell, me, though this is irrelevant to the "resurrection".
do you also believe there was a literal Adam and Eve,
the first people,and a literal world wide flood?

Because if you do, then what you are looking at is not
the "best explanation", but rather, the one that best
comforts you in your chosen belief.

Who cares about my motives? Ad hominem - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

oh but I do strongly suspect.....He did resurrect
spiritually
and we do the same
I think we are on the same page

Yes, Jesus resurrected spiritually, but ALSO, the spirit of Jesus was resurrected after three days.

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.” Some Answered Questions, p. 104

seems there is report that He did eat and drink with His disciples
and one of them insisted upon a tactile proving.....fingers in the wounds

and the women that saw Him first after His rise.....were cautioned....
Do not touch Me
I have not yet ascended to My Father

conflicting reports?
yeah

No, stories. Anyone can write stories.

 

[Trailblazer]

Numbers of believers is not evidence.

That is certainly true. To say that would be ad populum.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

 

[Trailblazer]

I would want to see those statistics. 19% are 'sure' the resurrection never happened? I doubt that. More likely 'unsure.'

What these statistics indicated is that 81% of Americans either believe the resurrection took place or think that it might have. So only 19% of Americans say they are sure that the bodily resurrection did not take place.

I looked for that article but I could not find it, but I do not think it matters much anyway. What matters is what people believe will happen in the future. I found this while I was searching on the internet and it indicates that about half of Christians in the United States do not believe that their bodies will rise from the grave.

Most Americans don’t believe in the resurrection

“This thinking by a majority of Americans contradicts a basic tenet of Christianity.

Most Americans don’t believe they will experience a resurrection of their bodies after they die, putting them at odds with a core teaching of Christianity.

The findings of a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll surprised and dismayed some of the nation’s top theologians since it seems to put Americans in conflict with the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed, ancient statements of faith meant to unify Christian belief.

The Nicene Creed, adopted in 325, concludes with: “We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.” The Apostles’ Creed professes a belief in “the resurrection of the body.”

Only 36 percent of the 1,007 adults interviewed by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University said “yes” to the question: “Do you believe that, after you die, your physical body will be resurrected someday?”

Fifty-four percent said they do not believe, and 10 percent were undecided.”​

That means there is hope, but it also means that over one third of Americans believe that their bodies will rise from graves and I find it incredible that so many people still believe that, given it goes completely against what is scientifically possible. Do these people even bother to use their minds for anything, or do they just blindly follow what the Church has taught?

 

[Audie]

Who cares about my motives? Ad hominem - Wikipedia

Ah, the ad hom fallacy-fallacy.*
Tsk.
Do read your wiki article yourself,
lest you make this mistake again.

When you get that one figured out, try to learn this
one:

tu quoque.
You avoided having to engage with perceived
criticism by turning it back on me.

I am not concerned with your motives.

You made an assertion about
"best explanation", I questioned it.

But never mind,

*The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

 

[InChrist]

If Jesus had been raised from the dead as the new testament says with his wounds in tack so that doubting thomas could have to put his hand in his wounds he would have been a walking sack of butchered meat. He had been stabbed bleeding and his nail prints would be bleeding there's no scientific way.

The scriptures say Jesus has a "glorified " resurrected body, which is what all believers will also receive. I believe the scars (scars don't bleed, BTW) in His hands and side as an eternal reminder of His great sacrificial love.

 

[InChrist]

The scriptures were written in a way that there was no way Paul or any of the other writers could have been the real writers and was written
between 30 and 100 years later then Christ and completely unreliable. All we have are copies of copies of copies.

That is not my perspective. I believe the gospels were written before 70 AD before the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Otherwise, an event this majorwould have been mentioned.

"There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Israel. In fact Eusebius (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Israel to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 and as late as A.D. 55.

Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the Gospel accounts, further supports their accuracy. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were not considered reliable witnesses in the culture of that day."
When were the Gospels written?