He is Risen - The Evidence

[nPeace]

Won't work to convince people who do not already believe in the Bible.

LOL. You are joking right? Either that, or you aren't listening to anything I say.
I don't even know what to say. If you think I am interested in convincing skeptics on RF of anything... all I can do is LOL.
I hear the craziest things on RF. It's as though you make up things for laughs.

Can't do this on a phone. Please wait for a few days.

I heard this before @sayak83. Do you remember? You were going to get back to me with information I asked you to support your claim with, over a year ago. Up till now, I haven't heard anything from you on it. So, I am not holding my breath on this one. That's understandable, considering, right?

 

[sayak83]

LOL. You are joking right? Either that, or you aren't listening to anything I say.
I don't even know what to say. If you think I am interested in convincing skeptics on RF of anything... all I can do is LOL.
I hear the craziest things on RF. It's as though you make up things for laughs.


I heard this before @sayak83. Do you remember? You were going to get back to me with information I asked you to support your claim with, over a year ago. Up till now, I haven't heard anything from you on it. So, I am not holding my breath on this one. That's understandable, considering, right?

Well if you are not interested in convincing or at least trying to explain your POV to skeptics then there is no point to the discussion here.
I remember. Life happened. I truly do not have the same amount of time as I used to have before getting married. Sorry about that.

 

[sayak83]

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.


What other evidence for the resurrection of Jesus would there be?

Firstly: there was never a significant number of scholars who ever believed that Jesus was an entirely mythical person. A few, but not many. You have claimed here that somehow that there were a lot of mythicists in the past and that number has declined recently as the Bible has proved trustworthy. This is simply not true. The numbers are about the same, a few mythicists then as now, a small minority among the Bible scholars. Please show evidence that Bible scholars saying that Jesus never existed was large in number or that historicity of Jesus has gained more acceptance today than in the past. I do not believe you can show this at all, as this did not happen.
It unclear what exactly is your argument for believing that the Bible is a trustworthy historical source? There are thousands of first hand accounts of alien abduction or sighting of Big Foot as well, and these eye witness accounts refer to real people, real events and real places. Does that mean they are trustworthy. Can you propose a general theory regarding why one set of eye witness accounts about an event is more trustworthy than another. Also is there any way to verify that the gospels were eye witness accounts?

What sort of a reasonable God would go through the pains of death and resurrection, state its the most important event for the faith of humanity, state that believing it to be true to be absolutely necessary for salvation for all humans...and then cloak the event in such hush hush secrecy that a) Jesus cannot be recognized b) He only appeared to a few of his disciples c) he appeared only for a few days? A reasonable God would make the event the most well documented, the most widely witnessed and most accurately evidenced event of history. It would not look like that a religious leader met an unexpected death, his bereaved followers had visions and then created a theory to save their movement and somehow reconcile their faith in the movement. Your explanations seem nothing but excuses that the gospel writers created to convince their in group...nothing more.

Christianity is not showing any amazing growth. I often see that when evidence is provided showing that Christianity is declining or that most are only token Christians...people quote Jesus saying it was predicted that only a few will believe. Then suddenly we hear that amazing growth justifies Christianity. Which is it? It can't be both can it? You consider the ability to successfully convert as evidence of resurrected Jesus? You seriously think that is reasonable stance?

Overall your faith in the truthfulness of the Bible seems to have led you to believe that the most unreasonable things and events as somehow reasonable. But then, as you quoted, the Bible writers pride themselves on their irrationality and foolishness. So that is expected.

Note: I have not quoted the entire opening post as there was a word limit warning that was coming.

 

[nPeace]

Well if you are not interested in convincing or at least trying to explain your POV to skeptics then there is no point to the discussion here.
I remember. Life happened. I truly do not have the same amount of time as I used to have before getting married. Sorry about that.

Not interested in explaining my point of view?
You're pulling some fast ones. Where did that come from? Did I say that... Or did you just make that one up too?
This is getting quite tiring, to be honest.

If you have something to support your claim that I harp on faith based statements and Bible is true claims, then please produce it, but the made up stuff is not necessary.

 

[sayak83]

Not interested in explaining my point of view?
You're pulling some fast ones. Where did that come from? Did I say that... Or did you just make that one up too?
This is getting quite tiring, to be honest.

If you have something to support your claim that I harp on faith based statements and Bible is true claims, then please produce it, but the made up stuff is not necessary.

Umm... I just wrote a big post on that...

 

[nPeace]

Firstly: there was never a significant number of scholars who ever believed that Jesus was an entirely mythical person. A few, but not many. You have claimed here that somehow that there were a lot of mythicists in the past and that number has declined recently as the Bible has proved trustworthy. This is simply not true. The numbers are about the same, a few mythicists then as now, a small minority among the Bible scholars. Please show evidence that Bible scholars saying that Jesus never existed was large in number or that historicity of Jesus has gained more acceptance today than in the past. I do not believe you can show this at all, as this did not happen.

My source is in the OP. Where is yours. Please provide a source for the claims you are making here, since you have not done so.

It unclear what exactly is your argument for believing that the Bible is a trustworthy historical source? There are thousands of first hand accounts of alien abduction or sighting of Big Foot as well, and these eye witness accounts refer to real people, real events and real places. Does that mean they are trustworthy. Can you propose a general theory regarding why one set of eye witness accounts about an event is more trustworthy than another. Also is there any way to verify that the gospels were eye witness accounts?

So you are saying that you cannot provide one single sentence in a list that the OP contains, to quote you... "faith-based statements."
Looking at the OP, I knew that.

What sort of a reasonable God would go through the pains of death and resurrection, state its the most important event for the faith of humanity, state that believing it to be true to be absolutely necessary for salvation for all humans...and then cloak the event in such hush hush secrecy that a) Jesus cannot be recognized b) He only appeared to a few of his disciples c) he appeared only for a few days? A reasonable God would make the event the most well documented, the most widely witnessed and most accurately evidenced event of history. It would not look like that a religious leader met an unexpected death, his bereaved followers had visions and then created a theory to save their movement and somehow reconcile their faith in the movement. Your explanations seem nothing but excuses that the gospel writers created to convince their in group...nothing more.

Christianity is not showing any amazing growth. I often see that when evidence is provided showing that Christianity is declining or that most are only token Christians...people quote Jesus saying it was predicted that only a few will believe. Then suddenly we hear that amazing growth justifies Christianity. Which is it? It can't be both can it? You consider the ability to successfully convert as evidence of resurrected Jesus? You seriously think that is reasonable stance?

This seems quite off topic. Could you create a thread, to discuss these, if you desire.
Also. I seem to be missing the part in the OP that says the ability to successfully convert as evidence of resurrected Jesus
Could you point out where I said that, Or are you using another poster's argument to claim that I made it. i.e. making up things?

Overall your faith in the truthfulness of the Bible seems to have led you to believe that the most unreasonable things and events as somehow reasonable. But then, as you quoted, the Bible writers pride themselves on their irrationality and foolishness. So that is expected.

I think my acceptance of the reliability of the Bible, is no different from my acceptance of the reliability of observable science.
That has nothing to do with faith.
Do you have faith in science, or do you go by accepting something based on evidence?
That's what I do. So that talk about faith when it comes to accepting historical documents is nothing more than... imo, flawed thinking, with some opinionated bias, mixed in with it.

Note: I have not quoted the entire opening post as there was a word limit warning that was coming.

That's too bad, because, it makes it evidently clear that you made a claim with no basis, and thus it's an unsupported claim... apparently, a strawman.

 

[nPeace]

Umm... I just wrote a big post on that...

Sometimes I take the thread, one post at a time.

 

[sayak83]

My source is in the OP. Where is yours. Please provide a source for the claims you are making here, since you have not done so.


So you are saying that you cannot provide one single sentence in a list that the OP contains, to quote you... "faith-based statements."
Looking at the OP, I knew that.


This seems quite off topic. Could you create a thread, to discuss these, if you desire.
Also. I seem to be missing the part in the OP that says the ability to successfully convert as evidence of resurrected Jesus
Could you point out where I said that, Or are you using another poster's argument to claim that I made it. i.e. making up things?


I think my acceptance of the reliability of the Bible, is no different from my acceptance of the reliability of observable science.
That has nothing to do with faith.
Do you have faith in science, or do you go by accepting something based on evidence?
That's what I do. So that talk about faith when it comes to accepting historical documents is nothing more than... imo, flawed thinking, with some opinionated bias, mixed in with it.


That's too bad, because, it makes it evidently clear that you made a claim with no basis, and thus it's an unsupported claim... apparently, a strawman.

I did not see any source supporting your contention that Jesus mythicists were somehow dominant among scholars once and had been refuted recently. You made this claim. I am asking you to back it up.

The rest is your faith based belief that what the Bible says about resurrection is reasonable. I am pointing that it's not, and it's your faith that is making you think it is.

 

[nPeace]

I did not see any source supporting your contention that Jesus mythicists were somehow dominant among scholars once and had been refuted recently. You made this claim. I am asking you to back it up.

The rest is your faith based belief that what the Bible says about resurrection is reasonable. I am pointing that it's not, and it's your faith that is making you think it is.

You like making claims, I see... unsupported ones.
I acknowledge your opinions, baseless as they are.

 

[sayak83]

You like making claims, I see... unsupported ones.
I acknowledge your opinions, baseless as they are.

I see you making baseless claims and then accusing others of doing the same when getting called out for it. But I acknowledge your dodge as what it is, inability to back up your OP with anything of substance.

 

[nPeace]

I see you making baseless claims and then accusing others of doing the same when getting called out for it. But I acknowledge your dodge as what it is, inability to back up your OP with anything of substance.

Nope. You came in here, making baseless, claims. not only that, but you made up several claims about what I said... none of which you were able to back up, when called upon to do so.
Then you claim you don't see a source which is in the OP, and claiming that you don't see it.
Start backing up your claims. I know it's impossible to back up the ones you obviously made up, but at least try to back up one... at least... try.... at least. Or were all of them made up?

Then making up stuff again about someone being called out. LOL. At least I answered the "call".
You on the other hand, have been called out, and found guilty of making claims that are baseless, made up, and you can't even support one.

 

[McBell]

You like making claims, I see... unsupported ones.
I acknowledge your opinions, baseless as they are.

 

[nPeace]

View attachment 51117

Wow. Another made up... what do you call that? Some kind of "Let's add nothing because it looks good" picture.

Yeah. It's someone's nice graphic.
It's out of place though. Actually it's technically, another baseless claim.
Sure, you can't support it either.

 

[McBell]

Wow. Another made up... what do you call that? Some kind of "Let's add nothing because it looks good" picture.

Yeah. It's someone's nice graphic.
It's out of place though. Actually it's technically, another baseless claim.
Sure, you can't support it either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. Another made up... what do you call that? Some kind of "Let's add nothing because it looks good" picture.

Yeah. It's someone's nice graphic.
It's out of place though. Actually it's technically, another baseless claim.
Sure, you can't support it either.

Oh my! he just does not get it.

 

[McBell]

Oh my! he just does not get it.

I figure until they post something that is worth more than a half arsed meme, all they will get is half arsed memes.

Though I do have a nice collection of full arsed memes I sincerely hope they can evolve up to....

 

[blü 2]

That would be 'sins ' I think the bible covers that.

So now you say God has ordered [his] chosen people to sin! We agree! At last! But who will judge the judge on Judgment Day?

God Judged Adams sin

You've yet to point to any sin of Adam, or even any mention of sin in the Garden story, Your difficulty here is compounded by there not being any, of course.

and look what happened then.

They got kicked out of the Garden because God thought they were threatening to become immortal like [him]. And for no other reason. If in doubt, read the text.

Then God Judged in the time of Noah Literally only 8 people survived that.

Yes, that was murderous folly by the Almighty, and on a colossal scale. Good thing it's only a tale.

 

[blü 2]

Not interested in explaining my point of view?
You're pulling some fast ones. Where did that come from? Did I say that... Or did you just make that one up too?
This is getting quite tiring, to be honest.

If you have something to support your claim that I harp on faith based statements and Bible is true claims, then please produce it, but the made up stuff is not necessary.

Well, you certainly haven't produced any evidence acceptable to students of history. You can't even show that the supernatural is found in reality, which means, does it not, that your supernatural claims have no claim to credibility ─ and that's before we get back to the hopeless quality of the bible's evidence ─ no eyewitness, no independent witness, no mention within twenty years of the purported event, no details within 45 years, no details with resurrected Jesus within 55 years, and each of the six accounts contradicting the other five.

This is getting quite tiring, to be honest.

 

[rational experiences]

O earth. God. O stone complete formed in the nothing of space. Coldest space is empty space. Nothing means no form and no factors. True emptiness.

Brother Mr I will leArn. How cold is empty space as coldest?

The reason any body of mass in space is held to form?

Answer I will never know. I told you says Mr destroyer it is a mystery.

Thinks.

Says the beasts knew they got snap frozen.

Studies their snap frozen bodies. Surely I can learn he says.

The beast learning earth in its coldest empty space gain snap freezes life in water. We live as bio water bodies. Your water inside your body can instantly snap freeze.

Is what the giant beasts on earth living inside it's heavens taught you. Were eating suddenly got snap frozen.

You already have learnt and been given your science answer.

Which came way too late.

As first you destroyed life on earth. Machine parts human artefacts found embedded inside of snap frozen stone.

The evidence. God had to snap freeze in space its stone body again. Where its origin form had been formed. First body.

Brother says but space the coldest form only held the atmosphere not stone. Stone existed inside of a warm gas atmosphere.

Science atmosphere is not origin to stones presence. Told. Totally ignored his own information.

So we ask him what happened to the earths heavens? So that stone became stone recreated?

I burnt them out he says in satanism nuclear science. I sent the human life spirit water into hell. Because he did. Burn us to death in burning gases. Stephen Haw King I told you so warning.

A human is only termed a human alive.

A deceased human is determined to be deceased by causes.

Our science brother confessed and told us what he did. Then used it as a life threat ever since. You will get sent to hell if you don't listen to my medical healer advice. Science answers medical.

 

[joelr]

Is it because you prefer to hear to hear, "The Bible is myth." "Jesus is a make-belief character." etc.?
Is that what you prefer to hear? Just stated beliefs or claims with no evidence to support it, but just mere opinions? Is that it?
You don't want to hear anything against that?
Is that it?

Come to think of it, I never once saw you ask the many posters on here making unsupported claims, why they post.
Hmm.

You think the idea that Jesus is a made up character is an unsupported claim? Except when presented with evidence you had nothing to say. When presented with archeologists showing the Bible is not historical you ignored it.
Exactly ALL of the evidence on Jesus suggests he is a made up character. There are zero historical claims that state he was real. There are passing mentions of him way after he was gone in the context of something Christians believe so these are references to the gospels.

All of the OT and NT contains improbable and borrowed myths, no eyewitness accounts and are written like fiction. We are fairly certain all of the gospels were copied from Mark and an analysis on Mark shows he was using older fiction and other sources to create the story.
It's not even an original story but contains Hellenistic elements already found in many cults nearby.

So all possible evidence suggests there was no gospel Jesus.
Even after giving plenty of evidence to this, rather than have an honest discussion you just ignore it and literally pretend as if it never happened?

Shall I go back and count all of the claims that I sourced and provide a list? This is too much denial to be left unchecked.