What ONE critical piece of information made you decide to believe or disbelieve Jesus rose?

[John1.12]

As I explained, Jesus rose as a spirit, not as a man of flesh and blood. (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Peter 3:18)

His ascending into the clouds meant that his de-materialization to spirit form, was not witnessed. And the man they saw after his resurrection was a man of "flesh and bone" not a man of "flesh and blood"....

Luke 24:37-39....after his resurrection Jesus appeared to his disciples....
"But because they were terrified and frightened, they imagined that they were seeing a spirit. 38 So he said to them: “Why are you troubled, and why have doubts come up in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.”

He then asked for some food and ate it in front of them to demonstrate that he was in human form. But for the 40 days before he ascended to heaven, he did not stay with the 12 as he had done for the previous three and a half years....he only "appeared" to them....and in different bodies.

His blood was shed for mankind and once his mission was completed, the body he was given to sacrifice was taken by God, as it was prophesied that his flesh would not see corruption in the grave. (Acts 2:31; Psalm 16:10)

As was the case with Moses' body, no one knew where his remains were buried. Humans would have had a field day with Jesus' 'bits and pieces' as relic worship swept the Catholic world. Look at the adoration given to the "Shroud of Turin" despite the fact that it has been proven to be a fake....Christ was not even buried in a shroud and it is much younger than the first century. A satanic trick perhaps?

//Jesus rose as a spirit,// ??
37But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
This is completely opposite to what your saying? He's saying he is not a spirit. ' Flesh and bone ' . The blood was shed . But he raises with a ' glorified ' body . Still flesh but ' glorified ' .

 

[John1.12]

As I explained, Jesus rose as a spirit, not as a man of flesh and blood. (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Peter 3:18)

His ascending into the clouds meant that his de-materialization to spirit form, was not witnessed. And the man they saw after his resurrection was a man of "flesh and bone" not a man of "flesh and blood"....

Luke 24:37-39....after his resurrection Jesus appeared to his disciples....
"But because they were terrified and frightened, they imagined that they were seeing a spirit. 38 So he said to them: “Why are you troubled, and why have doubts come up in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.”

He then asked for some food and ate it in front of them to demonstrate that he was in human form. But for the 40 days before he ascended to heaven, he did not stay with the 12 as he had done for the previous three and a half years....he only "appeared" to them....and in different bodies.

His blood was shed for mankind and once his mission was completed, the body he was given to sacrifice was taken by God, as it was prophesied that his flesh would not see corruption in the grave. (Acts 2:31; Psalm 16:10)

As was the case with Moses' body, no one knew where his remains were buried. Humans would have had a field day with Jesus' 'bits and pieces' as relic worship swept the Catholic world. Look at the adoration given to the "Shroud of Turin" despite the fact that it has been proven to be a fake....Christ was not even buried in a shroud and it is much younger than the first century. A satanic trick perhaps?

//...he only "appeared" to them....and in different bodies.//
No verse says this ?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

What makes me believe in the resurrection is that He seemed so perfect in life, if anyone could do it it would be Him.

But can you trust the stories about him? They were written by Greeks 50-100 years after he died and they didn't even know him--certainly never heard him speak.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You know what's amazing to me Deeje.
Dark matter - the idea of it, is that it cannot be seen, nor detected, except... you ready for this... Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect.

I think that very much puts that matter to rest, because any form of energy beyond man's understanding can go undetected, and unobserved by them.
I would like to envision how man thinks gravity can affect one of these... Exodus 3:2 ; Judges 13:20

Man believes it will be possible to teleport, and yet they deny a life form of energy that ability.

Why?
The only conclusion that I can come to, which makes sense to me, is that man (some) believes only what he physically can see, or what scientists tells him.
If scientists can accomplish it, it is fine, but to them, there is nothing beyond the scientists ability.

That's not reasonable, because, scientists can and do discover things beyond their knowledge, and ability. Because they have not discovered it, does not mean it is impossible.
That makes sense, doesn't it @SeekingAllTruth?

This is a philosophical type of question. I'm only interested in what can or cannot be proved right now and on the basis of lack of evidence for Jesus it is reasonable to conclude Jesus never rose.

 

[nPeace]

This is a philosophical type of question. I'm only interested in what can or cannot be proved right now and on the basis of lack of evidence for Jesus it is reasonable to conclude Jesus never rose.

I was responding mainly to your saying things did not make sense to you, so I was showing why they should make sense.
What do you mean by lack of evidence for Jesus?

 

[nPeace]

But can you trust the stories about him? They were written by Greeks 50-100 years after he died and they didn't even know him--certainly never heard him speak.

You know they were written by Greeks? How? How did you come by this 'special knowledge'?

 

[nPeace]

What ONE critical piece of information made you decide to believe or disbelieve Jesus rose?
The fact that prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

 

[74x12]

For myself, I could have said

* there were no eyewitnesses to the resurrection

There were eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after his resurrection. Over 500 of his followers actually. These people must have seen something to risk their lives and many of them martyred due to being completely convinced he did rise.

* there is no empty tomb

Is this really relevant to the discussion? I think if you did find an empty tomb that wouldn't make a difference in your opinion. It's just an empty tomb. But, there are actually two tombs in Jerusalem. One is where the Catholics claim Jesus was and is now a Catholic church and the other many protestants believe is the correct one and is an actual tomb in the garden of Gethsemane. So, without getting into who is right ... either way I disagree with you.

* history doesn't record a single mention of ANY of the apostles, as if they never existed

Then how do we know anything about them? There are historical records of them existing; just apparently not acceptable to you.

* the 4 resurrection accounts are rife with inconsistencies

No. They were written by different authors with different perspectives and different sources. That implies authenticity.

* the gospels were all written in Greek by anonymous writers 50 to 100 years after the fact

For one thing there is nothing wrong with Greek. Secondly, that's not necessarily true. I believe Matthew and possibly other books were written in Hebrew.

* the original gospels were never preserved

So? What original ancient documents are preserved from those days? Probably none that were written on parchment or papyrus. I think the only ones might be ones originally recorded on stone, masonry or clay.

* the earliest full copies of the gospels date to 300 years after Christ's death

Which is impressively early for a copy in my opinion and therefore adds validity to existence of an earlier gospel. These were considered the most trustworthy copies by people so they preserved them.

* if God had really wanted us to believe Jesus rose he would have given us irrefutable evidence that would completely eliminate all doubt, but he didn't

Then where is the need for faith? If you have all answers; then you don't have to trust God. This life is ultimately a test.

I could have said any of the above but the one critical piece of information that makes me doubt the resurrection is the fact that outside of a scant mention of "James, brother of Jesus who was called the Christ"--and that doesn't mention the resurrection at all--we have absolutely no mention of the name "Jesus Christ" ANYWHERE in the secular historical record until after Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire.

This is the one piece of information that convinces me Jesus never rose from the dead.

Well maybe not specifically the exact name "Jesus Christ" but he's certainly mentioned, alluded to and his followers are even more so. I think from the secular Roman perspective they dealt more with his followers than with the man Jesus Christ himself who was gone.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The Bible does mention what the eleven apostles did, after Jesus' ascension. See Acts Chapters 1 and 2

Acts does NOT mention Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, Jude, or Matthias. Please tell us how you know where they went or if they even left Jerusalem and how they died. If you cannot then please explain why I hear every apologist under the sun say, "The apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus." How does anybody know when history doesn't record any of them?

Why would the Bible need to mention their deaths?

So apologists have something to lean on when they say "The apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus." How do they know the apostles died for their faith unless they're just assuming they did.

Why would we expect secular history to mention the apostles?

The point is not why would they, the point is nobody mentioned how the above named apostles died so how do Christians say they died for their faith. It's a form of dishonesty and apologists know they are lying when they say that.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

We don't have much hope if Satan's the truth teller lol

I have more reason to believe satan is telling the truth than I do Jesus. Look at how many lies Jesus tells in the gospels. See my thread "Four failed prophecies of Jesus".

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There were eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after his resurrection. Over 500 of his followers actually. These people must have seen something to risk their lives and many of them martyred due to being completely convinced he did rise.

How do you know any of this? Prove it without using a quote from the Bible or just admit it's your belief based on faith.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There were eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after his resurrection. Over 500 of his followers actually. These people must have seen something to risk their lives and many of them martyred due to being completely convinced he did rise.

Is this really relevant to the discussion? I think if you did find an empty tomb that wouldn't make a difference in your opinion. It's just an empty tomb. But, there are actually two tombs in Jerusalem. One is where the Catholics claim Jesus was and is now a Catholic church and the other many protestants believe is the correct one and is an actual tomb in the garden of Gethsemane. So, without getting into who is right ... either way I disagree with you.

Then how do we know anything about them? There are historical records of them existing; just apparently not acceptable to you.

No. They were written by different authors with different perspectives and different sources. That implies authenticity.

For one thing there is nothing wrong with Greek. Secondly, that's not necessarily true. I believe Matthew and possibly other books were written in Hebrew.

So? What original ancient documents are preserved from those days? Probably none that were written on parchment or papyrus. I think the only ones might be ones originally recorded on stone, masonry or clay.

Which is impressively early for a copy in my opinion and therefore adds validity to existence of an earlier gospel. These were considered the most trustworthy copies by people so they preserved them.

Then where is the need for faith? If you have all answers; then you don't have to trust God. This life is ultimately a test.

Well maybe not specifically the exact name "Jesus Christ" but he's certainly mentioned, alluded to and his followers are even more so. I think from the secular Roman perspective they dealt more with his followers than with the man Jesus Christ himself who was gone.

* show us the historical records of the apostles existing. The truth is you cannot.

* you believe Matthew was written in Hebrew but can you produce proof?

* if you want to believe all this based on faith I have no problem with that. Just be honest and say, "There's no secular proof for any of this, it's a matter of believing on faith."

 

[robocop (actually)]

But can you trust the stories about him? They were written by Greeks 50-100 years after he died and they didn't even know him--certainly never heard him speak.

I trust wikipedia on it.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You know they were written by Greeks? How? How did you come by this 'special knowledge'?

Because all we have are Greek manuscripts. It's pretty obvious.

 

[nPeace]

Acts does NOT mention Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, Jude, or Matthias. Please tell us how you know where they went or if they even left Jerusalem and how they died. If you cannot then please explain why I hear every apologist under the sun say, "The apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus." How does anybody know when history doesn't record any of them?

Are you asking me to explain why it is said that the apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus.
Why, it's written all over the Greek scriptures.
History confirms that those who joined themselves to Jesus the Christ, becoming Christians were persecuted, by both Jews and Romans... and beyond.

So apologists have something to lean on when they say "The apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus." How do they know the apostles died for their faith unless they're just assuming they did.

We could assume that if they recanted their faith, they might have been spared, but why speculate on either.
We know - this is fact - what I stated above.
There is no reason to believe otherwise. Paul's case was real, and a demonstration of what the apostles faced.
Peter and John were both pillars like Paul. All the apostles were.

We know too, because of what Jesus said, and what they destiny was.
We have evidence today also, in the persecution of Christians who have the same destiny. Rev. 12:17

The point is not why would they, the point is nobody mentioned how the above named apostles died so how do Christians say they died for their faith. It's a form of dishonesty and apologists know they are lying when they say that.

There was mention.

 

[nPeace]

Because all we have are Greek manuscripts. It's pretty obvious.

Sounds like an assumption. Are you going with assumptions?

 

[nPeace]

How do you know any of this? Prove it without using a quote from the Bible or just admit it's your belief based on faith.

What do you mean, prove it without using a quote from the Bible. Prove that what is written in the Bible isn't true.

 

[John1.12]

I have more reason to believe satan is telling the truth than I do Jesus. Look at how many lies Jesus tells in the gospels. See my thread "Four failed prophecies of Jesus".

I looked at it and couldn't take it seriously.

 

[John1.12]

Acts does NOT mention Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, Jude, or Matthias. Please tell us how you know where they went or if they even left Jerusalem and how they died. If you cannot then please explain why I hear every apologist under the sun say, "The apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus." How does anybody know when history doesn't record any of them?



So apologists have something to lean on when they say "The apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus." How do they know the apostles died for their faith unless they're just assuming they did.




The point is not why would they, the point is nobody mentioned how the above named apostles died so how do Christians say they died for their faith. It's a form of dishonesty and apologists know they are lying when they say that.

What your completely missing, is the bible is written to believers. Its not desperately trying to prove itself to anyone. It doesn't care about your ' reasoning ' and demands for ' proof ' .

 

[nPeace]

* show us the historical records of the apostles existing. The truth is you cannot.

You have a Bible. Have you read it? Do so. It's there.
You have the online encyclopedias. Google it.
I'll help.
Christianity in the 1st century - Wikipedia

* you believe Matthew was written in Hebrew but can you produce proof?

See here.

* if you want to believe all this based on faith I have no problem with that. Just be honest and say, "There's no secular proof for any of this, it's a matter of believing on faith."

Any of what?
There is secular proof for Jesus, his followers, amd Christianity.
Were you asking for anything else?