The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[InChrist]

Have you ever seen it happen? Do you know anyone who has seen it happen? Do you know what happens to the body of a dead person after three days? Biologically it is impossible for someone to come back from the dead. Now, I suspect you will cue the didit fallacy.

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Mark 10:27

 

[Trailblazer]

He was resurrected in a cave with a stone sealing it. But later he appeared to the people I previously listed.

How would the women at the tomb and the disciples know when Jesus was resurrected if it was spiritual?

Besides, a physical Jesus appeared to the disciples, and Jesus spoke to doubting Thomas thusly: "Touch me and see; a ghost (spirit) does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." - Luke 24

Sorry, I was not raised as a Christian so I do not know the Bible very well, not like all these atheists who put me to shame.

I do know about doubting Thomas but Jesus could have made Himself look that way.

 

[Darkstorn]

Nuts. You should do your homework on that. I doubt you have. Here's something for your edification:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

None of those are history books. They are Christian apologetics. They are trying to argue, using philosophical terms, the necessity for the truth value regarding those peoples' own beliefs. That's all.

None of those books are evidence of anything except people having an emotional attachment to a concept.

And you haven't read them yourself. You're just giving a list of books that WE have to read, or else we're not in a position to argue. We'll, i'd argue you'd have to read them too. And you haven't. So why are you making arguments here?

Speaking of the New Testament, they weren't a part of "the Bible" in the first century. They were independent manuscripts written by different authors in different locales at different times. That's INDEPENDENT confirmations.

You haven't read those books. You've only read the compiled editions, authored by conclaves with political motivations. I bet you're actually reading the English translation, specifically, King James Bible.

Then those aren't the same stories as told in the first century. I'm aware there was probably oral tradition. But the conclaves collected, amended and just plain EDITED the books to fit their ideal. That's how the actual compilation we call the Bible came into being.

TLDR: Those early manuscripts DIFFER with the final version. Moreover, the translations differ from the original versions too, both in meaning and tone. Therefore, all that's evidenced is this: The original manuscripts are so different from the current ones, that it renders both suspect. Which one is the correct one?

I've actually seen some really really loony fundies claim that the KJV version is the ONLY one that matters and that everyone else is wrong. But again, that's just poor theology. Like yours.

That's funny. Peter, Matthew, and John lived with Jesus. They were contemporary with him. Just because they wrote later doesn't make them non-contemporary.

The gospel of Matthew was written between 80-90CE. The gospel of John was written between 90–110 CE etc etc.

Oh and the gospel of Mark (68–70 CE) is "infamous" for having multiple different versions of the story that differ fundamentally between each other.

I.E The disciples didn't write any of them. NONE of them were written by eye witnesses.

And here's confirmation of the traditional Gospel authors: Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for… | Zondervan Academic

Why don't you guys ever do your own research?

We have. That site is a biased, unreliable source and doesn't actually provide evidence for its claims. It's just Christian apologetics. And you should probably read the very last paragraph.

I don't know if there's anything lazier than you using a Christian apologetics article to try and support your point, without you actually having READ said article...

TLDR: Apologetics isn't fact or history based. Most often, they are actually appeals to emotion and that's it.

 

[blü 2]

The disciples gave their lives for a metaphor? Really? Not at all likely.

I respectfully disagree. At the moment certain unrepresentative branches of the Muslim faith are notable for being willing to die for their story, but every Christian martyr (as such) of whatever era has died for a story, whether or not it seemed to them equivalent to fact.

 

[InChrist]

I was not asking about witnesses who saw Jesus after He died. I was asking who were all the witnesses to Jesus rising from the grave?

It says on that link: “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32).
So who were there any witnesses to Jesus actually rising from the dead?

There are other explanations as to why people saw Jesus after He died other than that His physical body rose from the dead. It could have been the spiritual body of Jesus that came down from heaven that people saw. Given the way it behaved, it is a lot more likely it was a spiritual body. Of course since Jesus could perform miracles, Jesus could make His body look real to the disciples in order to restore their faith.

Yet, Jesus was plainly showing them He was not a spirit, so if He was only "making or faking" that His body was real He would be a liar.

And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. Luke 24:38-40

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you knew the scriptures you'd be a born-again Christian, as opposed to a theological wannabe.

I could make a similar claim. If you knew the scriptures you would be an atheist. Richard Carrier is a prime example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the meaning of the resurrection? Here's part of it:

"And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" - 1 Corinthians 15:17

Just because you can find a verse that makes that claim that does not make it so. What logical reason is there a need for Jesus's resurrection? Why even the need for a crucifixion? You portray your God poorly when you make the claim it was necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The disciples gave their lives for a metaphor? Really? Not at all likely.

There is no reliable history on what happened to the disciples either. Your faith is based upon myth piled on myth.

 

[oldbadger]

It's not a debate with you. It's you kicking everything presented to you to the curb, as evidenced by your comment that there's no evidence for the resurrection in my Post # 98.

I afraid that that was all your post 98 was worth.
There was no evidence there for a resurrection, but there was strong evidence to support the idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion and got clear.

Joseph was a successful trader and the Northern ports of Tyre (where the Roman version of the Temple shekel was first struck) and Sidon had been trading goods for tin with Cornwall, England for hundreds of years already. There is a Cornish Oral Tradition that Joseph came to Cornwall with Jesus...... and that sounds really stretched until until the regular trade with Palestinian ports is considered.

It may be that Jesus SonofTheFather who lead a riot (probably in the Temple) and who the people loved so much was the real Jesus. Early Christians were worried about that for sure, because his first name was removed from later bibles and his last name was only ever printed in Eastern Aramaic.... to hide him in plain sight. Pilatre like him as well, and pardoned and released him. Maybe that is how he came to pass through Capernaum later on?

The possibilities and very few probabilities are there for consideration, but the resurrection is a faith, and no more.

Continue with your faith, is my suggestion. Believe in it. Live it. But if you try to stuff it down our throats you'll lose.... every time. Because we investigate.....

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Countless times skeptics of Christianity in these fora have been challenged to 'bust' (falsify) the resurrection as it is presented in the New Testament, etc. Every time they've been challenged they run from it, or come up with some shallow argument which they never fully defend. Or they run to Genesis for cover. At no time that I can recall has anyone ever busted the resurrection, although the skeptics love to present wall-to-wall THEORIES on what might have otherwise occurred. They LOVE their theories and unfounded claims. But so far they have no credible evidence to substantiate those theories.

If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc. And if they can't bust the resurrection, they should strongly reconsider their contrary opinions on the matter.

Skeptics, let's see your bad-boy arguments, and do please endeavor to come up with some EVIDENCE to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!

In other words my understanding is that you are claiming that only the literal interpretation is correct, that only the interpretation you believe in is true and all others false? That no other interpretation can possibly be true??

‘Let the dead bury the dead’. - is that also true that Jesus meant for dead bodies to rise up and bury the physically dead?

So where do you draw the line?????

But if it appears nonsensical as in the verse ‘ let the dead bury the dead ‘ then interpretation is adjusted so as not to give a bad impression???

I noticed in newer translations of the Bible it now says ‘let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead’.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yet, Jesus was plainly showing them He was not a spirit, so if He was only "making or faking" that His body was real He would be a liar.

And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. Luke 24:38-40

You are working on the assumption that those stories are true. We are not. Quoting Bible verses is not going to convince anyone except those who already believe it or accept its authority.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I afraid that that was all your post 98 was worth.
There was no evidence there for a resurrection, but there was strong evidence to support the idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion and got clear.

Joseph was a successful trader and the Northern ports of Tyre (where the Roman version of the Temple shekel was first struck) and Sidon had been trading goods for tin with Cornwall, England for hundreds of years already. There is a Cornish Oral Tradition that Joseph came to Cornwall with Jesus...... and that sounds really stretched until until the regular trade with Palestinian ports is considered.

It may be that Jesus SonofTheFather who lead a riot (probably in the Temple) and who the people loved so much was the real Jesus. Early Christians were worried about that for sure, because his first name was removed from later bibles and his last name was only ever printed in Eastern Aramaic.... to hide him in plain sight. Pilatre like him as well, and pardoned and released him. Maybe that is how he came to pass through Capernaum later on?

The possibilities and very few probabilities are there for consideration, but the resurrection is a faith, and no more.

Continue with your faith, is my suggestion. Believe in it. Live it. But if you try to stuff it down our throats you'll lose.... every time. Because we investigate.....

Fighting myth with more myth. This is quite amusing.

 

[sealchan]

The "story" about Jesus involves multiple, independent historical accounts. They constitute a preponderance of the evidence. The scales of evidence are in our favor vs. those who do nothing more then engage in a lackluster, self-serving denial.

Those independent accounts, the gospels, are not very independent. They include verbatim content as well as rearranged content, not to mention mutually exclusive content. Plus if you add in the other gospels that didn't "make it", plus the fact that the gospels were written decades after the events they purport to describe and the earlier writings of Paul don't seem to corroborate anything other than some of the core beliefs and metaphors of the meaning of Jesus' life...its looking very much like gospel authorship was much more inspiration than historical fact.

Luke, perhaps, says it best:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled a among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

• "Many have undertaken" - Not apostles
• "Handed down to us from eyewitnesses and servants of the word" - based on personal recollection, testimony and word of mouth
• "Carefully investigated" - Not a eyewitness as are none of the other gospel writers

There are differences and additions to the narrative that clearly indicate personal creative initiative especially scenes which would have had to have been shared by characters in the narrative for which the narrative shows no evidence or motivation that they shared such things. In the close study I started on Matthew it seems that there are significant influences in his writings from other religions as if he were attempting to craft the story of a new religion emerging from the presence of others including Zoroastrianism and Buddhism not to mention local perspectives such as the Essenes.

There is so much evidence that Jesus' story is first and foremost a creative narrative written with spiritual sincerity if not historical validity. Getting the deep meaning of the Word out has always been much, much more important than getting at the facts. Witness the alignment of the least self-edifying branches of Christianity today with the least self-edifying philosophies in politics.

 

[Jainarayan]

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
...
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Gary Habermas - RationalWiki
Gary Habermas - RationalWiki

Everyone to his/her own beliefs, but you're going to extraordinary lengths, not to mention tantrums and histrionics, to prove your beliefs. By definition, beliefs can't be proven. Whom are you trying to convince of Jesus's historicity and resurrection, us or yourself?

 

[JJ50]

Gary Habermas - RationalWiki
Gary Habermas - RationalWiki

Everyone to his/her own beliefs, but you're going to extraordinary lengths, not to mention tantrums and histrionics, to prove your beliefs. By definition, beliefs can't be proven. Whom are you trying to convince of Jesus's historicity and resurrection, us or yourself?

Good question.

I do wonder if those who believe something that is less than credible to be factual, and bang on about it, are trying to convince themselves as to its veracity.

 

[oldbadger]

Fighting myth with more myth. This is quite amusing.

So get laughing.....

The Cornish tin trade to Tyre and Sidon is well recorded. Get learning ...! LOL

 

[sooda]

Good question.

I do wonder if those who believe something that is less than credible to be factual, and bang on about it, are trying to convince themselves as to its veracity.

There is NO evidence for resurrection just as there is NO evidence Jesus walked on water or fed the 5000. I think its a matter or choice to believe the stories or not. But, one can't argue for evidence anymore than one can argue for evidence of Adam and Eve, the Flood or the Exodus.

 

[Spartan]

If Jesus was historical, it's up to you to show, with evidence, that he experienced crucifixion or resurrection.

This isn't a thread to potty-train skeptics on the historical Jesus. It's about the resurrection according to the Gospels, etc. If you think the Gospels are false, cite the scripture and make your case along with evidence to back up your claim.

Otherwise, go find somebody else to afflict.

p.s. Is it because you've been too apathetic to do your homework on the Bible / Gospels / Jesus, or is it just laziness?

 

[Spartan]

Yes, that is my argument since I believe that all the major religions are true, although God wants us to follow the religion for the dispensation we are living in, not the older religions.

If there is a loving God, it is completely illogical that this God would have Christianity as the one and only true religion because that would leave 67% of humanity out in the cold. You cannot use the argument that everyone could be a Christian if they wanted to because that could never happen.... so that leaves 2/3 of the world population as unsaved.

Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies that refer to the messianic age and that is one reason the Jews rejected Jesus.

Nonsense. He'll fulfill the remaining prophecies at the 2nd coming. Skeptics always forget to mention this.

 

[sooda]

Good question.

I do wonder if those who believe something that is less than credible to be factual, and bang on about it, are trying to convince themselves as to its veracity.

There is NO evidence for resurrection just as there is NO evidence Jesus walked on water or fed the 5000. I think its a matter or choice to believe the stories or not. But, one can't argue for evidence anymore than one can argue for evidence of Adam and Eve, the Flood or the Exodus.