• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

Riders

Riders

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Being not sure the resurrection happened does not make them believers. If they dont know they dont support the idea of the resurrection.
 
Riders

Riders

Well-Known Member
InChrist said:
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?
Click to expand...

Experts dont agree with this for the most part.
 
tigrers2019

tigrers2019

Member
Subduction Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have studied concerning this artifact and the truth is, plain and simple, it is the real deal. It does not satisfy the hardcore fundamentalist, and by their very nature.... the determined unbeliever.
 
Kilk1

Kilk1

Member
Audie said:
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
Click to expand...
But your whole case against it being the best explanation was on me, wasn't it? Does this mean we have an ad hominem fallacy fallacy fallacy? Lol.

My point is that even if I just wanted comfort in my own beliefs, the case I made could still be accurate. It all hinges on the argumentation itself, not my motives that led up to it.
 
Riders

Riders

Well-Known Member
InChrist said:
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.
Click to expand...

No the bible says his body was as when he was crucified which is why he tells doubting Thomas to stick his hands into his bail scars and where he had been stabbed his wound was open. If his nail scars were really open and his stab wound as he said he would be bleeding ro death.........
 
Riders

Riders

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yet less then 40 percent of americans go to church. Therefore I don't necesarily believe these statistics.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
tigrers2019 said:
I have studied concerning this artifact and the truth is, plain and simple, it is the real deal. It does not satisfy the hardcore fundamentalist, and by their very nature.... the determined unbeliever.
Click to expand...
Your word alone is worth less than that of a naysayer here since when you make a positive claim you put a burden of proof upon yourself. When you make a claim of magic you put a HUGE burden of proof upon yourself. I have looked into this as well and have found no valid reason to believe. Perhaps you have something new, but I seriously doubt it.

Real scientists have studied it and found it to be a fraud. It is far too young to be the real deal.
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Bethsheba Ashe said:
It would be contrary to the teachings of the current Christian churches... but may I suggest, perhaps not to the teachings of the Gnostic Christians of the time?
Click to expand...

After the death of the apostles ( Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 ) an apostasy set in.
False clergy developed ' Christendom ' the current so-called Christian churches.
1st-century Christian writings are the teachings of Christ Jesus.
Those who follow the 1st-century teachings of Christ as found in Scripture are genuine ' wheat ' Christians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top