Jesus Resurrection

[Apologes]

As far as history goes, it is not sufficient for establishing the resurrection. It does, however, lend itself very well to a view that the crucifixion of Jesus is as much of a historical fact as it gets. Coupled with a plethora of information a good deal of historical Jesus scholars would agree on, this gives us a good historical foundation from which we can build up a resurrection argument.

I'd be wary of dismissing the veracity of the resurrection before taking a good look at the arguments for it, be it from people like N.T. Wright (though he doesn't explicitly argue for its truth but more so against naturalistic alternatives) and Mike Licona. Then there are also philosophers like William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne and the list goes on.

 

[Jollybear]

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

You asked for evidence that the apostles died for there claims to the resurrection, i give you that evidence that someone else had the time to pile together, then you blatently dismiss it.

Me giving you this article in no way means ive never looked at the evidence myself. I have, alot of it. But to compile it all would take alot of work (e.g. time, time i have limit on). But others have piled it together, whats wrong with me using them as a source? Nothing at all.

However, there IS something wrong with you dismissing it without refutting it after its presented.

 

[Jollybear]

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.

If that is the case, surely the secret would have eventually come out. But as fare as im aware theres no sources saying the apostles DID NOT DIE for there claims. Further, whole church groups, communities killed in romes colosseum.

No sources saying it DID NOT happen. If it was made up, surely someone, somewhere, and probably more then one, would have spilled the beans.

If there persecuters wanted this christian movement to die out, instead of saying the resurection was false, they should have said they never persecuted anyone, including the apostles, lol, that would have been the smart thing to do. The dishonest thing on top of it.

Yes, no?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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 are multiple lines of inquiry one can use to make an informed, reasonable decision that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

I think given the primitive medical science and an unwillingness to settle on a definition of death which is a problem to this day, it's easy to see how a person was assumed to be worse off than they were and then they got better. Note how nearly all resurrection stories don't exactly involve people buried in dirt or thrown out into the sea or something. They are almost always intact (for the most part) and resurrecting in a tomb with (limited?) air. Osiris is about the only One I can think of that is chopped up into fish bait and still manages to pull Himself together (sorry ).

Why would the apostles (e.g. witnesses of the resurrection ) die for there claims to it then?

Why did 9/11 happen? Plus, it's not like the people being executed signed up for it, like it was some sort of bake sale. The Romans just kinda did it.

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.

The witnesses who didn't witness much when they ran from the cops to avoid punishment and denied ever being with him? Those witnesses?

Pete was tossed in jail at least once. Instead of letting himself be freed by *cough* "angels" *cough*, why not tell the "angels" that he should die for his beliefs?

Why do Jesus and his apostles and Paul all have histories of running FROM death for their beliefs?

And i dont see why anyone would die for claims like this (being a witness and all) and it not be true.

People are idiots and arrogant.

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

You act like Jesus and the apostles just waltzed up to Romans going, "Hi, I'm scheduled to be martyred this afternoon?". The Romans would put up entire forests of crucifixes for people they didn't like. The beliefs of the victims aren't really relevant.

Your misrepresenting the issue. Its not dying for a BELIEF, its dying for a claim to KNOWLEDGE, based on a WITNESS.

Per the stories, the apostles were either doing apostle things or ran off when the heat was on. What did they witness? How did they witness Jesus' birth? How did they witness what he did while he was alone? I mean, I know our justice system can be really corrupt and stupid, but their testimony would be picked apart in the first five minutes of the trial.

The apostles wer in a situation to KNOW if the resurrection was true or false.

Is that why they didn't witness the crucifixion for the most part? Is that why they didn't recognize a man they should've been with the majority of the time? Is that why the risen Jesus shows them a few puncture wounds and nobody thinks to ask where all the lacerations from all the torture stuff are?

Oh, that's right: they weren't there to witness how the Romans turned him into hamburger meat, so the fact some guy says Jesus and his body doesn't just scream "Jesus" and there are only a few easily accomplished holes to look at doesn't faze them at all.

 

[Hawkins]

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.

You are brainwashed by "evidence". What evidence do you have for a meal you just had a month ago?

Generally speaking, it's out of humans' capability to evidence the past. That's why our history is made of human accounts of testimonies. We could possibly get to know your meal contents if a CNN reporter (a reliable account of testimony) record it down for the rest of humankind to believe with faith.

 

[Jollybear]

I think given the primitive medical science and an unwillingness to settle on a definition of death which is a problem to this day, it's easy to see how a person was assumed to be worse off than they were and then they got better. Note how nearly all resurrection stories don't exactly involve people buried in dirt or thrown out into the sea or something. They are almost always intact (for the most part) and resurrecting in a tomb with (limited?) air. Osiris is about the only One I can think of that is chopped up into fish bait and still manages to pull Himself together (sorry ).


Why did 9/11 happen? Plus, it's not like the people being executed signed up for it, like it was some sort of bake sale. The Romans just kinda did it.

911 was people dying for a belief, not for something they knew. Theres a difference between dying for a belief that you think is true, but is a lie, and dying for something you know is true or a lie.

Dont misrepresent the issue. The apostles wer in the situation to KNOW if this was true or false.

The witnesses who didn't witness much when they ran from the cops to avoid punishment and denied ever being with him? Those witnesses?

They wer human, they ran at times, yes, but not all the time and ultimately they did not recant there claims. At first they ran, then they hid because they knew there message was valuable and it needed spreading. And ultimately they did give there lives for it.

Pete was tossed in jail at least once. Instead of letting himself be freed by *cough* "angels" *cough*, why not tell the "angels" that he should die for his beliefs?

Because it was never about dying for the claims and its message, it was always about the claim and message itself. Dying for it just gives it credibility.

Why do Jesus and his apostles and Paul all have histories of running FROM death for their beliefs?

They needed to spread the message. Plus, they didnt always run. The ultimate run would be recant and they never did that.

People are idiots and arrogant.

Really, all people are idiots and arrogant? You gonna die for arrogance and idiocy? Yea right. Not to mention a part of there message was to preach against pride (arrogance). So, that point is weak. Care to try again?

You act like Jesus and the apostles just waltzed up to Romans going, "Hi, I'm scheduled to be martyred this afternoon?". The Romans would put up entire forests of crucifixes for people they didn't like. The beliefs of the victims aren't really relevant.

Actually no, your misrepresenting what im saying. They didnt LOOK for death. Thats not what i said at all. And no, the romans did not arbitrarily kill people. Thats foolishness.

Per the stories, the apostles were either doing apostle things or ran off when the heat was on. What did they witness? How did they witness Jesus' birth? How did they witness what he did while he was alone? I mean, I know our justice system can be really corrupt and stupid, but their testimony would be picked apart in the first five minutes of the trial.

They witnessed his crucifixion, his burial and his resurrection appearences. Thats what the sources reveal.

But, you say the justice system would pick this apart. Ok, why not go ahead and PROPERLY pick it apart because im not sold by what your saying yet.

Is that why they didn't witness the crucifixion for the most part? Is that why they didn't recognize a man they should've been with the majority of the time? Is that why the risen Jesus shows them a few puncture wounds and nobody thinks to ask where all the lacerations from all the torture stuff are?

They DID witness the crucifixion, the tomb and the appearences. The reason the lacerations and gore was all gone is because think for a moment, God reserrected him, hence, healed his body and rose it. Come on now, do i even have to break that down for you? I dont know whos worse, you or promethious at this point. He needs alot broken down too.

Oh, that's right: they weren't there to witness how the Romans turned him into hamburger meat, so the fact some guy says Jesus and his body doesn't just scream "Jesus" and there are only a few easily accomplished holes to look at doesn't faze them at all.

Just because you say they wernt witnesses dont mean they wernt. The sources show they wer. You got any sources saying they wer NOT witnesses? HAND THEM OVER.

 

[Woberts]

911 was people dying for a belief, not for something they knew. Theres a difference between dying for a belief that you think is true, but is a lie, and dying for something you know is true or a lie.

They're both beliefs based around a lie. The fact is that there is no evidence for Jesus's resurrection.

 

[viole]

Why would the apostles (e.g. witnesses of the resurrection ) die for there claims to it then?

Why did those people who believed to get a hitch hike from a UFO hiding behind a comet decided to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their kids, then?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

If anybody thinks for a minute that a true resurrection of a completely deceased person (not mostly "deceased" like in the case of NDAs) has occurred, or can occur has a bit of a screw loose on the intellectual and pragmatic side of the argument.

No actual Resurrection has ever happened to anybody throughout the historical record, aside from mythology , where of course the notion and lore had come from in the first place .

Actually, no. Smith Wigglesworth has been noted to have God raised various people from the dead.

The reality that the problem isn't documented cases of people being raised from the dead but rather whether people believe they were actually raised from the dead.

 

[Riders]

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.

That's ok I do not mind mind being ignored on this thread. But you are stating my argument well enough anyways thanks.

 

[pearl]

Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred

Nowhere is the Resurrection described. Usually there is the error of confusing resurrection with resuscitation.

 

[Jumi]

Why would the apostles (e.g. witnesses of the resurrection ) die for there claims to it then?

It's an interesting type of question you can ask for many of the world religion's start. If they weren't true, why would they have met first with repression and then success after that?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Yes I do and as Acts is part of those scriptures, I see they contain more truth than most mens interpretations or literal understandings.

Peace be with you and God bless, Regards Tony

 

[lukethethird]

It's all so very simple, we just have to read The Bible literally, snakes really do talk and the resurrection really happened, it's all so very true. Just believe like we are told to and don't ask questions, nothing to it.

 

[Jollybear]

They're both beliefs based around a lie. The fact is that there is no evidence for Jesus's resurrection.

How is the apostles claim of the resurection a belief?

 

[Jollybear]

Why did those people who believed to get a hitch hike from a UFO hiding behind a comet decided to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their kids, then?

Ciao

- viole

Did those people WITNESS the UFO before killing themselves?

The apostles claimed to have witnessed all this. The crucifixion, tomb and resurrection appearences.

Thats the difference

 

[Jollybear]

It's all so very simple, we just have to read The Bible literally, snakes really do talk and the resurrection really happened, it's all so very true. Just believe like we are told to and don't ask questions, nothing to it.

Oh wait a minute. Its fine to ask questions. Im also asking questions. Ones like, why would these appostles die for a so called known lie and no one has given any good answers yet to that.

Theres just ALOT of misrepresenting my question.

And when does your sceptism turn from sceptism into naturalistic dogmatism?

 

[1robin]

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.

This is what I said. Why are you quoting it back to me so it looks like something your saying.

BTW you really need to read some Dan brown or N.T. Wright and get away from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant for an in-depth study of anything.

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.

1. It is true that in general the bulk of the NT books were all written before 70AD (a remarkably early date for works of this period). However there are certain phrases and formulas that can be traced back to sources within just a few years of Christ's death.
2. If you going to throw out claims about biblical contradictions your going to have to point some of them out to discuss. If not your just making vacuous complaints without a context.

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.

I assume you meant Christian bible, not bile. There was only one original Christian bible but it has been translated into many subsidiary version but we have everything we need to see where they differ in any way at all. In fact most of them footnote the reasons between their minor differences. There is even software now that can search through dozens of bible version sand find every variant between them. This is really not an issue.

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????????

I told you. You can search every single difference between bible versions and easily establish what the original most likely said and there really aren't that many differences. Most bible's have consistent doctrines it's the interpretations that vary somewhat between denominations and that isn't the bible's fault.

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

That is complete garbage. Get the two bible's you mention open them up and compare them. Outside of period language use I bet you will find well over 95% textual agreement between them and you will find footnotes describing the reasons behind most of the differences.

I get the distinct feeling your not really an expert in the field your trying to hold da discussion in. Also when your throwing out accusation after accusation I can't spend enough time on any one specifically in order to do it justice. Why don't you pick you "best" accusation and we can discuss it in depth to see if your accusation can withstand scrutiny?

 

[1robin]

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

Your preaching to the quire but it's even better than you suggest.

Among a consensus of those best trained to know (NT historians, regardless of faith) agree that these five historical events are historically reliable.

1. Jesus appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms.
3. He died by crucifixion.
4. His tomb was found empty.
5. That even his enemies claimed to have seen him post mortem.

Those are among the most reliable facts in the NT according to those best trained to know. If that is all we knew (instead of the wealth of knowledge we actually have) that would still be plenty to draw faith in the core tenants of Christian faith.