Jesus Resurrection

[Rational Agnostic]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

True.

 

[Prometheus85]

@Jollybear you say there is evidence for the resurrection because the apostles wouldn’t die for a lie. So provide evidence that the apostles dies for their belief in Jesus resurrection. It’s simple math, anything else u say is irrelevant

 

[Jollybear]

@Jollybear you say there is evidence for the resurrection because the apostles wouldn’t die for a lie. So provide evidence that the apostles dies for their belief in Jesus resurrection. It’s simple math, anything else u say is irrelevant

Here, read this. This saves me time. This article already has some of the evidence put together and condensed.

Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith? « Biola Magazine

 

[Prometheus85]

Here, read this. This saves me time. This article already has some of the evidence put together and condensed.

Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith? « Biola Magazine

you can’t articulate yourself when it comes to supporting your claims, so you cherry pick articles that support your claims.

 

[The Anointed]

@Jollybear you say there is evidence for the resurrection because the apostles wouldn’t die for a lie. So provide evidence that the apostles dies for their belief in Jesus resurrection. It’s simple math, anything else u say is irrelevant

If you have never seen the evidence that the apostles died for their belief in the resurrection of

Jesus, then you have never read the bible and you are arguing out of sheer ignorance to the scriptures. ​

 

[Prometheus85]

If you have never seen the evidence that the apostles died for their belief in the resurrection of

Jesus, then you have never read the bible and you are arguing out of sheer ignorance to the scriptures. ​

Ok Anointed, Let's assume that Jesus Christ existed as a literal, singular, historical person, and he did everything recorded in the Bible up to that point. Even given all this slack, there are real doubts about the accuracy of the Bible's account.

 

[Brickjectivity]

***Mod: Please do not debate in the introductions section. Debate should be kept to areas marked for it such as General Religious Debates, Scriptural Debates, Biblical debates.***

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there. The staff more strictly moderate Rule 10 violations where there is some other rule violation involved, such as preaching in a DIR or trolling a political forum a member doesn't belong to. More benign violations may be subject to informal reminders or moving threads to the appropriate location.

Private Forums
These are strictly for members of the indicated group. People other than members of the indicated group are prohibited. For example, to be a member of the Catholic group, you must be a Catholic. To Join a group, click on your username at the top right corner of the screen, click on "Join User Groups," and select the group you would like to join by clicking on the "Join User Group" button. Requests to join user groups must be approved by a member of the staff.

These rules cover most common situations, but they cannot anticipate everything. Consequently, we reserve the right to take any actions we deem appropriate to ensure these forums are not disrupted or abused in any way.

 

[1robin]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

There is more textual evidence for the life of Christ than for any prehistorical figure of any type. By the way why do you list the bible (which contains 5 independent testimonies to the same event) in one breath then dismiss it in another. Eyewitness testimonies like those contained in the gospels are the primary sources for events of any historical claim. Our primary source on Caesar is the history of the Gallic wars even though he wrote it as propaganda. Your basically rejecting the best data possible.

BTW it was 2000 yrs ago not hrs ago.

 

[Prometheus85]

There is more textual evidence for the life of Christ than for any prehistorical figure of any type. By the way why do you list the bible (which contains 5 independent testimonies to the same event) in one breath then dismiss it in another. Eyewitness testimonies like those contained in the gospels are the primary sources for events of any historical claim. Our primary source on Caesar is the history of the Gallic wars even though he wrote it as propaganda. Your basically rejecting the best data possible.

BTW it was 2000 yrs ago not hrs ago.

Primary source for Caesar is the gallic wars LMAO. The gallic wars are Hardly the primary source fire Caesar. While much of Caesar life is known from his military campaigns, there are also a lot of other contemporary sources, mainly the letters and speeches of Cicero and the historical writings of sallust. The later biographies of Caesar by Suetonius and plutarch are also major sources. I mentioned the Bible because the Bible IS the only source for the resurrection and the Biblical account for the resurrection is laced with contradictions.

 

[Riders]

There is essentially no evidence that the man Jesus even lived let alone that he died and was resurrected. The only real evidence we have is the witness of those who walked and talked with him and who were prepared to die for their convictions.

Where were you in my old thread about the origins of Christianity???????? HAHA

 

[Riders]

There is more textual evidence for the life of Christ than for any prehistorical figure of any type. By the way why do you list the bible (which contains 5 independent testimonies to the same event) in one breath then dismiss it in another. Eyewitness testimonies like those contained in the gospels are the primary sources for events of any historical claim. Our primary source on Caesar is the history of the Gallic wars even though he wrote it as propaganda. Your basically rejecting the best data possible.

BTW it was 2000 yrs ago not hrs ago.

Wiki says the writings for or on Christ way back then have not been proven to be real or is questionable except for the one guy who wrote about history I will find his name.

 

[Riders]

Wiki says the writings for or on Christ way back then have not been proven to be real or is questionable except for the one guy who wrote about history I will find his name.

Josephus

If Jesus had been real; there would have been tons of eye witnesses who wrote about it even in Egyptian writings, there were lots of writing about other Pharoahs leaders, Cleopatra but writings like that don't exist about Jesus.

 

[1robin]

Primary source for Caesar is the gallic wars LMAO. The gallic wars are Hardly the primary source fire Caesar. While much of Caesar life is known from his military campaigns, there are also a lot of other contemporary sources, mainly the letters and speeches of Cicero and the historical writings of sallust. The later biographies of Caesar by Suetonius and plutarch are also major sources. I mentioned the Bible because the Bible IS the only source for the resurrection and the Biblical account for the resurrection is laced with contradictions.

I will split the difference with you and say the primary source for his military campaigns. Just to try and keep the debate on topic. BTW I didn't say the Gallic wars was the only source, I said it was the main source caveat included.

The bible isn't a monolithic block which much all stand or fall together. It is a compilation (for Christ's life) of at least 5 authors writing independent yet perfectly consistent descriptions of many of the same events. You don't get much better than that for prehistoric events (almost never) and when you combine it with the early and prolific textual attestation there is no comparison of any type. The bible is the greatest pre-historic resource we have and that is the only thing you didn't want to include.

By the way depending on what the claim is about there are references to Christ or the earliest church beliefs in over 40 extra canonical sources. For example a hymn Paul based some of his writing on has been dated to years or even months of Christ's death

In a thread about Christ why did you spend 90% of your post on Caesar.

 

[1robin]

Wiki says the writings for or on Christ way back then have not been proven to be real or is questionable except for the one guy who wrote about history I will find his name.

Wiki is hardly a reputable source here. If you want I can lay out the confidence we can easily have in the biblical textual tradition for both the Byzantine and Alexandrian traditions if you want but unless your into the subject it's rather dry. Let me just give you what is necessary to have high confidence in the original even if the only extant works we have are from later periods.

1. Early copying.
2. Prolific copying.
3. No centralized controlling authority concerning content.
4. Wide spread lines of transmission.
5. Written by and for many differing cultures. (Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic, etc....)

And as a bonus to have long lost ancient versions of the texts discovered after long absences (like with the DSS).

The bible has them all in spades and some others I didn't even mention.

 

[Riders]

I will split the difference with you and say the primary source for his military campaigns. Just to try and keep the debate on topic. BTW I didn't say the Gallic wars was the only source, I said it was the main source caveat included.

The bible isn't a monolithic block which much all stand or fall together. It is a compilation (for Christ's life) of at least 5 authors writing independent yet perfectly consistent descriptions of many of the same events. You don't get much better than that for prehistoric events (almost never) and when you combine it with the early and prolific textual attestation there is no comparison of any type. The bible is the greatest pre-historic resource we have and that is the only thing you didn't want to include.

By the way depending on what the claim is about there are references to Christ or the earliest church beliefs in over 40 extra canonical sources. For example a hymn Paul based some of his writing on has been dated to years or even months of Christ's death

In a thread about Christ why did you spend 90% of your post on Caesar.

By the way depending on what the claim is about there are references to Christ or the earliest church beliefs in over 40 extra canonical sources. For example a hymn Paul based some of his writing on has been dated to years or even months of Christ's death.

Wiki says its proven that the new testament was written 20 to 40 years after Christ. It is inaccurate and truly the bible contradicts itself so many times its absurd.

and BTW which Christian bile are you talking about? Sense there are so many arguments as to which bible is the right bible, the bible has to be inaccurate.So we don't even know which is the right bible.

Is it the Catholic? : The Jehovas Witness Bible?'; The Oxford Bible with the Apocrypha in it?' The Gnostic lost books of the bible? The NiV? KJ????????

Now a days they say the original KJ from 1600s has nothing in common with the KJ of today.

 

[Riders]

His name is not Jesus BTW its either Jehovah which is what the Jewish Christians claim, or its Iesus pronounced Yazuus which is what the original Greek bible calls him. His name is not Jesus.

 

[Regiomontanus]

There is more textual evidence for the life of Christ than for any prehistorical figure of any type. By the way why do you list the bible (which contains 5 independent testimonies to the same event) in one breath then dismiss it in another. Eyewitness testimonies like those contained in the gospels are the primary sources for events of any historical claim. Our primary source on Caesar is the history of the Gallic wars even though he wrote it as propaganda. Your basically rejecting the best data possible.

BTW it was 2000 yrs ago not hrs ago.

Hello. As to the question as to whether Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified, there is little doubt except among the mythicists (an example being the OP). Among scholars of early Christianity there is not much doubt. Even among atheist NT scholars that is the case. See for example:


Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman) - Wikipedia

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

It is more than likely that it was a spiritual resurrection and that the body of Jesus was buried.

After all, Jesus said it is the Spirit that is Life, the flesh amounts to nothing.

It is Christ that resurrected to be with the Glory of God, the Father on the right of God.

Acts7:"55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw othe glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."

Regards Tony

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Yes, its got to be. No rational person, let alone 12, and more would die for what they knew was false.

Or their deaths were made up too - as part of weaving a compelling story.

I am originally from India and we have no shortage of such absurd claims used to shore up religious beliefs.

 

[The Anointed]

It is more than likely that it was a spiritual resurrection and that the body of Jesus was buried.

After all, Jesus said it is the Spirit that is Life, the flesh amounts to nothing.

It is Christ that resurrected to be with the Glory of God, the Father on the right of God.

Acts7:"55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw othe glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."

Regards Tony

Stephen, a Greek speaking Jew, who had been dragged before the Jewish authorities by Saul, in defense of his faith before being stoned to death, stated in acts 7: 4, that it was after Terah HAD DIED that his son Abraham obeyed God’s command and went to live in the land of Canaan. But the record in Genesis makes it plain that after Terah had turned 70 not 75 or 80, he became the father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran, and that Abraham was 75 when he travelled to Canaan, leaving his father with his younger brother “Nahor,” and that his father died 60 years later at the age of 205. Stephen ‘s word’s here are seen to be untrue.

Stephen also states in Acts 7: 15-17, that Abraham bought the grave site for Sarah in the land of Shechem from Hamor, whereas Genesis 23: shows that Abraham bought the grave site from Ephron the Hittite at Machpeleh east of Mamre, which is way to the south of Shechem. Again Stephen’s words are untrue.

It is also said by Stephen in the same verses, that Jacob and his sons were buried at Shechem, when in fact, it was only the remains of Joseph which was buried there, see Joshua 24: 32. Again Stephen’s words are untrue.

Jacob and his other sons were buried at Mamre and concerning the burial of Jacob, it is written in genesis 50: 13, “They carried the body of Jacob to Canaan and buried it in the cave at Machpelah east of Mamre in the field which Abraham had bought from Ephron the Hittite.” Again Stephen’s words are untrue.

But you choose to believe the words of Stephen, do you? Then you must reject the truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.