When I was gas burning irradiated what I saw gave me understanding of the human Jesus event.
Reason humans write other spiritual experiences just as humans. Attacked in life since the Jesus event.
Phenomena changes conditions to the gas.
A gas in science terms of old is spirit as against a solid reference as God stone earth. Reason earth is the product beginnings of science.
No human argument allowed about God statement as it is true. Reasoning don't argue scientist.
I saw as my head brain chemical burnt in intense prickling brown and black smoking wisping outside.
Crown of thorns idea I said. Prickling. Unlike my brother my blood cells did not change. Once only seeing silver metal ball did my uterus unnaturally activate bleeding.
Spirits arise. I saw it.
Alien looking image.
Stone like human statues appeared in image.
Human men spirits wearing clothing of the past appeared constantly.
Manifested in cooling floated off then disappeared.
To an irradiated mind it was real. Only the humans attacked saw it reality.
Meanwhile hearing the voice of American Native Indian father DNA owner historic in America say man son of humans attacked losing DNA history.
Reason the bible was written as it is ONLY phenomena of causes is not science but is being reviewed today as if it were involving temple pyramid use transmitting status.
Just to remind science they were not using the UFO effect which was the earth's owned activated attack. Tomb of dead not alight stone spirit removed leaving sink holes effect.
As stone gases came alive alight burning activated.
The tunnel they were using was not old sink holes it was in the machination design pyramid.
Today science man memory remembers life's attack. In the beginning science life was not being attacked. Memory human quotes science of this practice first was safe.
The end not his reaction had changed God the earth.
Reasoning science does not originally own any holding of energy or gas in his natural living conditions. Man life.
No. You do not see that in the OP. Nor do you see it in anything I wrote.
You are not burying your head in the sand also, are you?
I hope not, because that's not reasonable, and the OP provides a reasonable approach to looking at the evidence for the resurrection.
A man is only. Human. I am a female human. I know as father and mother created my being and yours brother.
A human is only a human. Living within water oxygen heavens. Nothing like stone.
So a man's spirit did not begin nor was it resurrected out of stone.
I lived through and survived irradiation.
I learnt.
My brother bled unnaturally in his attack. Hence obviously his mind state not as mine was. Worse. My attack Higher perceptive.
Science by man thinking status is a liar.
Your thoughts did not own nor form created creation. The basic truth to lying and egotism.
In the heavens gas irradiation crown of thorns physical condition he saw visionary phenomena as a human. Above our heads transmitted via cloud conditions.
Surely all your Ai and data cloud imaged you formed in transmitting conditions from satellite studies and human mind contact now has proven you wrong.
Above us as below says the God status about conditions.
Gases burnt. Gases cooled is where visionary image spirits and stories formed.
Bible said no man is God and you brother wrote that document.
It is all I see in the OP.
Your thread title states that it is about evidence for the resurrection.
On the topic of the resurrection, all you have to offer are bible quotes.
You know, saying things like "What we know : The Facts" and then following that up with "the bible says...", does not make what the bible says a fact.
As a matter of fact.............. the resurrection is a claim of the bible, which is the claim your argument is supposed to address. And then you quote from the bible as if it is fact, to support claims of the bible.
Circular argument is circular.
You are not burying your head in the sand also, are you?
Nope. I'm merely observing that where you are supposed to actually provide evidence for biblical claims, you are instead just pointing to more biblical claims (which themselves are also unsupported, off course).
So indeed, just like I said the first time, your "evidence" seems to consist of "the NT authors believed it".
I hope not, because that's not reasonable, and the OP provides a reasonable approach to looking at the evidence for the resurrection.
It is all I see in the OP.
Your thread title states that it is about evidence for the resurrection.
On the topic of the resurrection, all you have to offer are bible quotes.
You know, saying things like "What we know : The Facts" and then following that up with "the bible says...", does not make what the bible says a fact.
As a matter of fact.............. the resurrection is a claim of the bible, which is the claim your argument is supposed to address. And then you quote from the bible as if it is fact, to support claims of the bible.
The facts are 1) The Bible did say it. 2) The characters in the Bible oftentimes are confirmed - including Paul. 3) The events in many cases match up to confirmed historical accounts, as was shown from earlier historians. (Some I refered to)
So looking at things from a reasonable perspective (which is what I said), one has no reason to claim that there is no evidence, and these are not facts, because they include activities and events one denies, or disbelieves.
The other thing is, I refered to outside the Bible, namely events that took place, and are taking place, which are in agreement with the claims of those in the Greek scriptures.
The people living in the first century, could relate to the things that were writen and prophesied before, in the Hebrew texts.
Are you saying all that Jewish history is lost, just because you don't believe it.
I would say it's lost on you, but not on the early historians.
I would say it is an unreasonable position, and one of burying one's head in the sand.
People buried their head in the sand, to dismiss Hezekiah from history too. A flood of evidence washed the sand away, and they had no choice but to look and hold their head in shame.
That pattern will continue, until...
I can't change that.
I don't expect this thread, or any other on RF to change that either. I am just stating the facts.
the rest is up to you guys.
Nope. I'm merely observing that where you are supposed to actually provide evidence for biblical claims, you are instead just pointing to more biblical claims (which themselves are also unsupported, off course).
On the topic of the resurrection, all you have to offer are bible quotes.
You know, saying things like "What we know : The Facts" and then following that up with "the bible says...", does not make what the bible says a fact.
As a matter of fact.............. the resurrection is a claim of the bible, which is the claim your argument is supposed to address. And then you quote from the bible as if it is fact, to support claims of the bible.
Science expressed by the living human. Men invented sciences terms for humans.
Conscious self status said. I however never asked another human to invent science for humans.
In the reality a human virtually said science for humans as if science owned human presence.
When consciousness is the human spiritual taught topic.
Why human thinkers in science lied.
O planet stone formed in space.
A human knows their spirit never arose out of stone. Beyond owned presence its end stone is sealed. Tomb stone owned it's spirit not burning alive alight. Science said gods body deceased not light alight.
Advice to reason logic.
Science says hence the human was not resurrected out of an opened emptied earth mass spirit. Stone as the tomb status. God's owned spirit one is stone. The spirit left is stated.
Man never owned god. Man in science however removed gods status as stones presence and formed sink holes in science. The empty tomb.
Science then said confessed how man re resurrected the sacrifice of life. As it was brought to his attention he had been destroying converting earths mass form.
He had been previously sacrificing life...without spirit of stone opening into sink holes so ignored the human being life warnings. Witnessing life being health destroyed. Realised how evil converting earth mass was only when sink holes emptied tomb appeared.
Seeing earth as God supported human beings highest existence presence and health is a commonsense reasoning to stop nuclear science.
History is sciences own man reflection today.... look how evil you are to disbelieve in your own humanity. Ignore their warnings in body attacked harm and pleas to stop causing it up until the God body proved you wrong!
The facts are 1) The Bible did say it. 2) The characters in the Bible oftentimes are confirmed - including Paul. 3) The events in many cases match up to confirmed historical accounts, as was shown from earlier historians. (Some I refered to)
So looking at things from a reasonable perspective (which is what I said), one has no reason to claim that there is no evidence, and these are not facts, because they include activities and events one denies, or disbelieves.
Paul is real. His claim of a risen celestial being is not demonstrated to be true. There are many events that are also likely to be not true. Earthquakes, resurrected Saints, missing bodies from a tomb. No evidence.
There are also many OT stories that do not match archeological evidence.
So you are the one burying your head in the sand while attempting to claim this position on others.
Some historical accounts mentioned Christians. Pliny the Younger called them ""contagious superstition".
As far as the gospel narratives are concerned there simply is no evidence. The Greek and Hindu myths also wrote in real places, real wars and real people to mix with the stories of Gods. This does not mean they were real.
They also gave demigods historical settings, siblings and they interacted with people. That doesn't make Hercules real or any other myth.
The other thing is, I refered to outside the Bible, namely events that took place, and are taking place, which are in agreement with the claims of those in the Greek scriptures.
The people living in the first century, could relate to the things that were writen and prophesied before, in the Hebrew texts.
Are you saying all that Jewish history is lost, just because you don't believe it.
I would say it's lost on you, but not on the early historians.
I would say it is an unreasonable position, and one of burying one's head in the sand.
Some people chose to believe the gospels based on faith. 1st century apologist Justin Martyr had to explain that while Jesus looked like all the other myths this was the real version.
But many considered it a myth. The letters of Bishop Ignatius clearly show he knew about Christians and others who believed the stories were myth. It's all over his letters in the 2nd century:
"Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal."
Those Christians ideas are no longer here to examine because anything hat didn't follow what Ignatius and those who came into power was destroyed and the people were killed as heretics.
The facts are 1) The Bible did say it. 2) The characters in the Bible oftentimes are confirmed - including Paul. 3) The events in many cases match up to confirmed historical accounts, as was shown from earlier historians. (Some I refered to)
By that logic / standard of evidence, if a man named Peter Parker exists and lives in Manhattan, then that person must be Spiderman.
And Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.
So looking at things from a reasonable perspective (which is what I said), one has no reason to claim that there is no evidence, and these are not facts, because they include activities and events one denies, or disbelieves.
Each claim falls and stands on its own merrit.
Even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (which you can't, btw) that Jesus is historical and was crucified in the exact way as the bible claims, that does NOTHING to support the separate claim of he resurection.
Otherwise, if a Peter Parker exists in Manhattan, that person should be considered to be Spiderman.
The other thing is, I refered to outside the Bible, namely events that took place, and are taking place, which are in agreement with the claims of those in the Greek scriptures.
By that logic / standard of evidence, if a man named Peter Parker exists and lives in Manhattan, then that person must be Spiderman.
And Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.
Each claim falls and stands on its own merrit.
Even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (which you can't, btw) that Jesus is historical and was crucified in the exact way as the bible claims, that does NOTHING to support the separate claim of he resurection.
Otherwise, if a Peter Parker exists in Manhattan, that person should be considered to be Spiderman.
None of which do anything to support the resurrection claim, which is what your post is actually about.
I'm saying you haven't given a shred of evidence for the claim you are supposed to be supporting.
I already did.
Others did as well.
Those things that directly support a claim and which can be independently verified by others in an objective manner.
This all sounds familiar.
Here is the evidence in the form of fossils and artifacts. Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Watch the video. Look at the skulls as Dr. Potts raises them. Look at the gradual change. Can you see it?
Of course we can.
In the same way we can see the gradual change here.
So by that logic / standard of evidence...
evidence -
(n) the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent
I have presented the facts... and the evidence.
You don't have to believe. I don't believe what you believe either.
Oh, by the way, using Spiderman is a lousy analogy, since 1) no one ever claimed to be an eyewitness that there was a radioactive spider that could alter DNA to the point where the man became super. 2) There is no need to examine any facts presented for Spiderman being anything other than what it is.
Where do you come up with these arguments.
Oh, by the way, using Spiderman is a lousy analogy, since 1) no one ever claimed to be an eyewitness that there was a radioactive spider that could alter DNA to the point where the man became super. 2) There is no need to examine any facts presented for Spiderman being anything other than what it is.
Where do you come up with these arguments.
Then use any demigod because most were set in history and have earthly stories, interact with people, do miracles die and resurrect.
Krishna was born in Mathura India, had a childhood similar to the Jesus Infancy Gospels, interacted with people, died and came back to his celestial abode.
They even think he was based on a real person.
"most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna—that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories."
Did you have any evidence that isn't completely contradicted by archeology and history?
The difference with evolution is that the consensus in scholarship is that it's true. Not one piece of your "evidence" is supported as fact.
I fear there is no evidence of the resurrection. The reasons are many.
There's not even one authenticated example of a supernatural event in reality. Indeed the word "supernatural" means "outside nature", that's to say, outside objective reality, which means such things are only known to exist as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.
There are six relevant accounts in the NT, one by Paul, one in each of the four gospels, and one in Acts 1.
None is by an eyewitness, or even claims to be.
None is independent.
None is contemporary ─ the earliest, Paul's, is 20 or more years after the traditional date of the crucifixion. The first with any details is Mark, 45 years or so on, and it ends with the empty tomb. Matthew and Luke are mid-80s CE, 55 years or so after the event, and John's account a decade or so later still.
Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways. (We can go into details if you wish.)
When you consider the quality of evidence needed to demonstrate the reality of a purported supernatural event, it seems plain that the quality of the evidence for the resurrection is not only not in the ballpark, it's on a distant continent.
You may recall a few years back the "milk-drinking" miracles attributed to Ganesha in India, and some videos on the net of statues of Ganesha drinking milk. As evidence, those videos were/are many orders of magnitude better than the NT's evidence for the resurrection, but apart from some who already believed, I'm not aware that anyone else was persuaded.
I'd say that while someone may be able to accept the resurrection (though, which version?) by faith, the evidence is entirely incapable of making the case for such an historical event.
//When you consider the quality of evidence needed to demonstrate the reality of a purported supernatural event, it seems plain that the quality of the evidence for the resurrection is not only not in the ballpark, it's on a distant continent.// What if God did it the way he did it ? Does he have to do something to satisfy you alone ?
Persons are making the claim that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
In this thread, I will show that claim is false, and that it is both irrational, amd unreasonable, to demand particular expectations be met.
The following is looking at the facts reasonably.
First, it is important to mention the false claims... The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is described by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, as the position that "..the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." It includes the view that the story of Jesus is largely mythological, and has little basis in historical fact. It is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies and deviates from the mainstream historical view.
There are three strands of mythicism, including the view that there may have been a historical Jesus, who lived in a dimly remembered past, and was fused with the mythological Christ of Paul. A second stance is that there was never a historical Jesus, only a mythological character, later historicized in the Gospels. A third view is that no conclusion can be made about a historical Jesus, and if there was one, nothing can be known about him.
This sound very similar to what critics say about most of the characters and events in the Bible.
They claim myths, based on what... Most Christ mythicists follow a threefold argument: they question the reliability of the Pauline epistles and the Gospels to establish the historicity of Jesus; they note the lack of information on Jesus in non-Christian sources from the first and early second centuries; and they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins, as reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels, with Jesus being a celestial being who was concretized in the Gospels. Therefore, Christianity was not founded on the shared memories of a man, but rather a shared mytheme.
Jesus - The man What we know : The Facts
The Bible centuries ago, before modern acceptance, stated factually, that a Jewish man called Jesus the Christ / Messiah walked the earth; had followers; was put to death by the Romans.
It was not until recent, that critics of the Bible, finally conceded that there was indeed a man called Jesus Christ, who had followers, and was put to death by the Romans. Virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed. Among these scholars was G. A. Wells, a well-known mythicist who changed his mind and ultimately believed in a minimal historical Jesus.
Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."
In other words, Michael is actually calling out the hypocrites.
The lesson that should have been learned...
The Bible was telling the truth... again, even though it was not believed by critics.
The resurrection - Evidence Past
What we know : The Facts
It was the followers of Jesus who claimed that Jesus was risen.
The Bible says Jesus appeared - not to the Romans; not to the Jewish leaders, who wanted him dead, and would certainly have been happy to kill him a second time - but to his faithful followers.
Why did Jesus show himself only to his followers, and not the world? He wanted them to know that he was alive, as he promised he would be.
How did he go, undetected? Surely, if he was risen, people would know, and it would be widely reported. It would make "headline news".
No. Here is why...
(John 20:14-20) 14 After saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus said to her: “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” She, thinking it was the gardener, said to him: “Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher!”) 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene came and brought the news to the disciples: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her. 19 When it was late that day, the first day of the week, and the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: “May you have peace.” 20 After saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord.
Luke 24:13-43 ; John 21:1-8
The Bible shows without any doubt, Jesus could not be recognized in person. Even his own relatives, and close associates, did not recognize him.
This is because Jesus was not raised in (with) a physically body, and he did not manifest in the same body he was put to death with.
So people passing Jesus, would not have been "Look! There is that man the Romans crucified."
This is a simple fact made in the Bible. Only Jesus follower had clear proof of Jesus' resurrection.
So only Jesus' followers were in a position to record that fact. No one else knew.
What lesson should people have learned, that keeps repeating itself?
What the Bible says, is true, but people keep denying it until they have no choice but to concede, when it is proven.
Present
What we know : The Facts
The Bible says... (Matthew 9:35-38) 35 And Jesus set out on a tour of all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the good news of the Kingdom and curing every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity. 36 On seeing the crowds, he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.”
(Luke 4:43) But he said to them: “I must also declare the good news of the Kingdom of God to other cities, because for this I was sent.”
Jesus preached about the kingdom of God, to the cities and villages.
Jesus' followers did the same. Jesus promised to be with his followers in this work, which they were to carry on. Matthew 24:14 ; Matthew 28:18-20
Today, millions of Christian followers of Jesus, are preaching the same message - the kingdom of God, in the same manner that Jesus did, throughout the entire globe, and amazing growth is seen as more disciples are added.
What is the evidence Jesus is with them?
In 33 CE, the evidence was seen in 1) the holy spirit empowering Jesus followers, and 2) the growth in the disciples, and their activity.
Today, the same is seen among his faithful followers.
While it is expected that there will be imitators, and counterfeits, this does not render the evidence void, just as fraud in science does not render the other evidence void.
This is reasonable, is it not?
Unreasonable demands and irrational expectations Based on the above, it is unreasonable to demand that Jesus should have left any trace outside what we have - the testimony of those who witnessed Jesus alive after his murder.
It is irrational to expect that Jesus should somehow appear to unbelievers to prove to them that he live, and perhaps beg them to accept that fact.
The Bible says... (1 Corinthians 2:8-10) 8 It is this wisdom that none of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had known it, they would not have executed the glorious Lord. 9 But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.
In other words, God does not care that the opponents of the Bible, do not believe. He cares only that those who know him, or want to know him, based on the available evidence, are blessed with more - knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
Why?
The Bible says... (1 Corinthians 2:14) But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.
To the proud person, the things of God are foolishness.
Imagine that you had some pearls of very high value, and you wanted to share them with everyone.
However, some people don't see the value in them. They take them and just throw them away, or pound them to dust, to make some kind of recreational drug. Would you give those people your pearls?
That would be like giving food to people who take it and bury it in the earth. Matthew 7:6
If you could predict what a person would do, you would be selective in whom you give good things to.
This is the way God deals. Because God knows the heart of man, he is selective in who receives truth.
That's reasonable, isn't it?
What other evidence for the resurrection of Jesus would there be?
The only things I disagree on here would be ,i believe he was raised in the same physical body. ( yes a glorified one ,no less ) Because that's what it says . The other point would be, they were preaching the gospel of the ' kingdom ' which is distinct from the Gospel of grace we should preach today.
evidence -
(n) the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent
I have presented the facts... and the evidence.
You don't have to believe. I don't believe what you believe either.
Oh, by the way, using Spiderman is a lousy analogy, since 1) no one ever claimed to be an eyewitness that there was a radioactive spider that could alter DNA to the point where the man became super. 2) There is no need to examine any facts presented for Spiderman being anything other than what it is.
Where do you come up with these arguments.
But the leaf shapes did evolve from each other. We have fossil evidence for this. So your leaf figure is actually an evidence of evolution of leaves. Evolution and Development of Leaf Shape | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable
I cannot see how anybody on earth can believe that the OP you wrote can be construed as evidence for resurrection. But to each his own I guess.
