What Real Evidence Exists for The Resurrection?

[godnotgod]

The Resurrection is the centerpiece of Christian doctrine. It is the "proof" that Jesus is who he said he was: God himself in the flesh. If there is any doubt that the blood sacrifice of The Crucifixion did indeed wash away Original Sin and set man free, it is The Resurrection that is the clincher.

But where is the factual, first-hand evidence? We have some Biblical accounts of those who claim to have seen Jesus alive after his death and burial, and we have St. Paul's claim, made some 35 years after Jesus's death, of some 500 eyewitnesses to the actual event, some of whom were allegedly still alive at the time of his writing.

Now, here we have the single most important event in all of human history, with some 500 eyewitnesses present, but whose record is virtually non-existent, until some 35 years afterwards, and then only from the pen of one St. Paul, who was not even a contemporary of Jesus. Surely the surviving eyewitnesses would have been of supreme importance to St. Paul that he would do anything to interview them about what they saw. But he chose to ignore them completely, save for a footnote about them. As for the 500 themselves, we have not one single word from their mouths, either written directly, nor from a secondary source. Even had there been only 10 such bona-fide eyewitnesses, the sheer importance of the event itself would have resulted not only in throngs of people wishing to speak to them, but in their talking about the event day and night with everyone they came into contact with. The word of these eyewitnesses would have spread like wildfire throughout the community, since the popularity of Jesus was widespread, and many would have wanted to know the details of the event down to the color of the garment Jesus ascended into Heaven with; whether he was barefoot or not; what his wounds looked like; his hair, skin color; and any word he might have uttered in their presence. These eyewitnesses would have been instantly famous. We would know their names. There would have been many records, both oral and written, of their accounts. Those who were literate would have set down at least a word or two about the miracle they had just witnessed.

Instead, we have nothing; nada; zilch. For some 35 years, we have a silent vacuum, until St. Paul makes a footnote mention of their existence.

In fact, the whole story of The Resurrection seems to be held in a vacuum, as if it had been concocted out of whole cloth.

The only "proof" Christianity offers is the idea that the tomb was empty, but that is a poor argument. There are a number of possibilities for an empty tomb. To jump to the unfounded conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead is the least plausible explanation. Once dead, humans tend to stay that way. In fact, all humans since the first have done so. It is the norm. It would have been far more spectacular had the tomb NOT been empty, and today we would visit the actual tomb of one Jesus Christ.

Now, we do have some evidence that Jesus (actually Yeshua) may have been buried in a Kashmir tomb in India. There is textual evidence to support such an idea:

"The main text that supports the theory that Jesus was buried in Kashmir is the Bhavishya Maha Purana, the ninth book of the eighteen texts considered holy by Hindus; this text records the encounter between king Shalivahan and Jesus Christ, long after the crucifixion. In this passage, Jesus describes himself as being born of a virgin and as the Son of God. The description of Jesus in the Bhavishya Maha Purana records him as being fair skinned as wearing a white garment. Historians contend that this document has great value because, unlike the Gospels. it can be traced to be a specific date, the year 115 CE, which according to the account that Jesus lived 120 years, would have taken place five years prior to Jesus’ death.

The St. Issa Scroll is another text which is believed to support the theory that Jesus was buried in Kashmir following the crucifixion. The scroll, found in a Buddhist monastery in Hemis, records the travels of a Jewish boy to the East, a fact that some historians, such as Nicholas Notorich believe explains the absence of documentation regarding Jesus’ life in the Gospels between the ages of 12 and 30.
Historians who believe that the Kashmir tomb is that in which Jesus is buried, also point to the fact that the parables attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, such as the parable of the Sower, were attributed to Yus Asaph, as found in historical recordings."


Jesus Family Tomb: Alternative Theories: The Kashmir Tomb


also, see here: The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website


And so, it seems we have more evidence coming from the Far East than from Christian sources about what happened to him after the Crucifixion. Just more evidence which points to the idea that Jesus belonged to a mystical Jewish cult called the Nazorean Essenes, which was directly and strongly influenced by Buddhist teachings to begin with.

 

[Smoke]

What Real Evidence Exists for The Resurrection?

None.

The only "proof" Christianity offers is the idea that the tomb was empty, but that is a poor argument. There are a number of possibilities for an empty tomb.

We don't even know there was an empty tomb. I doubt it.

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

What kind of evidence do you expect for a 2000 year old event?
Would a mint 2000 year old edition of the Judean times with a photo on the front do?

In all seriousness, 35 years may seem a long time for this all to be wrote down but nobody can say with any certainty that nothing was written before that time, we just not have it today, but lets face it, if you were a Christian within those 35 years a low profile was a wise idea, both the Romans and the local authorities in what is now Israel had it in for the Christians big style,

as it is we have more evidence for Jesus death and resurection than many events in history that we seldom see fit to quible over.
Slim as it is, word got out and now over half the world believes Jesus died and rose again (Christians and Muslims) and most of the rest have heard about it, so what survived didnt do too badly.

At the end of the day I am not going to lie to you and the truth is although we have little bits here and there, there isnt much.

That Jesus rose again is where faith comes in, the evidence that Jesus went here or there or is now alive and well working in a fish and chip shop also requires a certain amount of faith, as there is nothing solid.

What we do know to a decent degree from the Talmud and other sources is that Jesus died, what happened next is where faith steps in.

 

[Dunemeister]

But where is the factual, first-hand evidence?

"Factual" need not be "first-hand."

Now, here we have the single most important event in all of human history, with some 500 eyewitnesses present, but whose record is virtually non-existent, until some 35 years afterwards, and then only from the pen of one St. Paul, who was not even a contemporary of Jesus.

Why should it be surprising or significant that the "500" didn't write anything down or that their writing didn't survive the ravages of time? Also, St. Paul WAS a contemporary of Jesus. Get your facts straight.

Surely the surviving eyewitnesses would have been of supreme importance to St. Paul that he would do anything to interview them about what they saw. But he chose to ignore them completely, save for a footnote about them.

Not so. Read Galatians.

As for the 500 themselves, we have not one single word from their mouths, either written directly, nor from a secondary source. Even had there been only 10 such bona-fide eyewitnesses, the sheer importance of the event itself would have resulted not only in throngs of people wishing to speak to them, but in their talking about the event day and night with everyone they came into contact with.

And that's in fact what happened. It got a lot of the testifiers killed.

The word of these eyewitnesses would have spread like wildfire throughout the community, since the popularity of Jesus was widespread, and many would have wanted to know the details of the event down to the color of the garment Jesus ascended into Heaven with; whether he was barefoot or not; what his wounds looked like; his hair, skin color; and any word he might have uttered in their presence. These eyewitnesses would have been instantly famous. We would know their names. There would have been many records, both oral and written, of their accounts. Those who were literate would have set down at least a word or two about the miracle they had just witnessed.

Don't confuse what WE would be interested in with what ANCIENT JEWS might have been interested in.

Instead, we have nothing; nada; zilch. For some 35 years, we have a silent vacuum, until St. Paul makes a footnote mention of their existence.

Again, why should this be surprising?

In fact, the whole story of The Resurrection seems to be held in a vacuum, as if it had been concocted out of whole cloth.

Spoken like someone without any real information.

The only "proof" Christianity offers is the idea that the tomb was empty, but that is a poor argument. There are a number of possibilities for an empty tomb. To jump to the unfounded conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead is the least plausible explanation. Once dead, humans tend to stay that way. In fact, all humans since the first have done so. It is the norm. It would have been far more spectacular had the tomb NOT been empty, and today we would visit the actual tomb of one Jesus Christ.

The argument involves:

(a) public execution
(b) burial
(c) empty tomb discovered
(d) appearances to single people and groups
(e) martyrdom of the witnesses
(f) survival of the movement beyond the death of the founder

So it's not as simplistic as you suggest.

Now, we do have some evidence that Jesus (actually Yeshua) may have been buried in a Kashmir tomb in India. There is textual evidence to support such an idea:

So you have your texts, and I have mine. I bet mine can beat up yours.

 

[no-body]

From a historical basis I think the take is the sect that awaited for Christ's return became so distraught when he didn't resurrect that rumors spread of his coming back until eventually the authors of the synoptic gospels wound these rumors together decades later into what we have in the bible now. You'd think someone coming back from the dead would receive more airtime even with the shoddy communication at the time.

 

[Humanistheart]

None.


We don't even know there was an empty tomb. I doubt it.

Or that he was cruxified.

 

[Humanistheart]

From a historical basis I think the take is the sect that awaited for Christ's return became so distraught when he didn't resurrect

There was no sect awaiting a christs return as a christ hadn't come yet, and I don't believe anyone was expecting jesus to resurrect.

 

[godnotgod]

What kind of evidence do you expect for a 2000 year old event?

More written evidence than is provided for other so-called "events" that were recorded in scripture, since this event is the single most important one for Christians.

In all seriousness, 35 years may seem a long time for this all to be wrote down but nobody can say with any certainty that nothing was written before that time, we just not have it today, but lets face it, if you were a Christian within those 35 years a low profile was a wise idea, both the Romans and the local authorities in what is now Israel had it in for the Christians big style,

...and yet, St. Paul, who was eventually murdered by the Romans, still managed to get his word out, did'nt he? You want me to believe that the Romans were so efficient in suppressing the Christians that not one single word of testimony survived for the most important event in history?

...as it is we have more evidence for Jesus death and resurection than many events in history that we seldom see fit to quible over.
Slim as it is, word got out and now over half the world believes Jesus died and rose again (Christians and Muslims) and most of the rest have heard about it, so what survived didnt do too badly.

What survived is what is in question here as valid "evidence". It amounts to hearsay, actually. The difference between the Resurrection and other events in history is that we are dealing with something far more implausible than, say, the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt.

At the end of the day I am not going to lie to you and the truth is although we have little bits here and there, there isnt much.

Thank you, but we must add to that, due to the significance of the event, the fact that bits and pieces did survive should point to a mountain of evidence surviving. As I said, the 500 eyewitnesses alone should have directly provided a word or two, but since they did not live in a vacuum, tens of thousands would have heard via of the 500 of the event, immediately afterwards, so that it would still have been fresh in their minds. Are you seriously going to tell me that not one single written word of testimony survived for an event of such magnitude? Come now!

That Jesus rose again is where faith comes in, the evidence that Jesus went here or there or is now alive and well working in a fish and chip shop also requires a certain amount of faith, as there is nothing solid.

Should I then also have an equivalent amount of "faith" in the Tooth Fairy, The Boogeyman, Santa Claus, and the Devil?

What we do know to a decent degree from the Talmud and other sources is that Jesus died, what happened next is where faith steps in.

Now that's a leap of faith, to be sure!

The real question is why you choose to accept the idea that someone could actually resurrect themselves into the sky. For you, it seems to be so non-chalant and casual an event. Ho Hum...the Resurrection....whatever....been there, done that...seen one, seen 'em all....NEXT!!

Actually, there was no "Jesus" who died: it was a certain Yeshua, who was a mystic Nazorean Essene, whose cult was influenced by Buddhism and Hinduism, that was crucified.

"Yeshua ben Yosef (or Yeshua bar Yosef) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Iesus. No one during Yeshua's life (prior to 30 CE) ever uttered the name, "Jesus." The letter "j" wasn't in the English language until the seventeenth century, so even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until after that time."

Yeshua and Jesus

Yeshua and his followers were vegetarians and did not believe in blood sacrifice, nor did they beleive in the resurrection of the body. Those ideas were superimposed into Christianity later on.

Gee! I wonder why!

 

[footprints]

The Resurrection is the centerpiece of Christian doctrine. It is the "proof" that Jesus is who he said he was: God himself in the flesh. If there is any doubt that the blood sacrifice of The Crucifixion did indeed wash away Original Sin and set man free, it is The Resurrection that is the clincher.

But where is the factual, first-hand evidence? We have some Biblical accounts of those who claim to have seen Jesus alive after his death and burial, and we have St. Paul's claim, made some 35 years after Jesus's death, of some 500 eyewitnesses to the actual event, some of whom were allegedly still alive at the time of his writing.

Now, here we have the single most important event in all of human history, with some 500 eyewitnesses present, but whose record is virtually non-existent, until some 35 years afterwards, and then only from the pen of one St. Paul, who was not even a contemporary of Jesus. Surely the surviving eyewitnesses would have been of supreme importance to St. Paul that he would do anything to interview them about what they saw. But he chose to ignore them completely, save for a footnote about them. As for the 500 themselves, we have not one single word from their mouths, either written directly, nor from a secondary source. Even had there been only 10 such bona-fide eyewitnesses, the sheer importance of the event itself would have resulted not only in throngs of people wishing to speak to them, but in their talking about the event day and night with everyone they came into contact with. The word of these eyewitnesses would have spread like wildfire throughout the community, since the popularity of Jesus was widespread, and many would have wanted to know the details of the event down to the color of the garment Jesus ascended into Heaven with; whether he was barefoot or not; what his wounds looked like; his hair, skin color; and any word he might have uttered in their presence. These eyewitnesses would have been instantly famous. We would know their names. There would have been many records, both oral and written, of their accounts. Those who were literate would have set down at least a word or two about the miracle they had just witnessed.

Instead, we have nothing; nada; zilch. For some 35 years, we have a silent vacuum, until St. Paul makes a footnote mention of their existence.

In fact, the whole story of The Resurrection seems to be held in a vacuum, as if it had been concocted out of whole cloth.

The only "proof" Christianity offers is the idea that the tomb was empty, but that is a poor argument. There are a number of possibilities for an empty tomb. To jump to the unfounded conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead is the least plausible explanation. Once dead, humans tend to stay that way. In fact, all humans since the first have done so. It is the norm. It would have been far more spectacular had the tomb NOT been empty, and today we would visit the actual tomb of one Jesus Christ.

Now, we do have some evidence that Jesus (actually Yeshua) may have been buried in a Kashmir tomb in India. There is textual evidence to support such an idea:

"The main text that supports the theory that Jesus was buried in Kashmir is the Bhavishya Maha Purana, the ninth book of the eighteen texts considered holy by Hindus; this text records the encounter between king Shalivahan and Jesus Christ, long after the crucifixion. In this passage, Jesus describes himself as being born of a virgin and as the Son of God. The description of Jesus in the Bhavishya Maha Purana records him as being fair skinned as wearing a white garment. Historians contend that this document has great value because, unlike the Gospels. it can be traced to be a specific date, the year 115 CE, which according to the account that Jesus lived 120 years, would have taken place five years prior to Jesus’ death.

The St. Issa Scroll is another text which is believed to support the theory that Jesus was buried in Kashmir following the crucifixion. The scroll, found in a Buddhist monastery in Hemis, records the travels of a Jewish boy to the East, a fact that some historians, such as Nicholas Notorich believe explains the absence of documentation regarding Jesus’ life in the Gospels between the ages of 12 and 30.
Historians who believe that the Kashmir tomb is that in which Jesus is buried, also point to the fact that the parables attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, such as the parable of the Sower, were attributed to Yus Asaph, as found in historical recordings."


Jesus Family Tomb: Alternative Theories: The Kashmir Tomb


also, see here: The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website


And so, it seems we have more evidence coming from the Far East than from Christian sources about what happened to him after the Crucifixion. Just more evidence which points to the idea that Jesus belonged to a mystical Jewish cult called the Nazorean Essenes, which was directly and strongly influenced by Buddhist teachings to begin with.

I put it this way pertaining to Jesus, deny the person if you will, but only a fool would deny the teachings.

Pertaining to whether or not the Nazorean Essenes were influenced by Buddhism, is a perceptional point. They may have been influenced by Buddhism, then again Buddhism may have been influenced by them. Certainly science suggests strongly that mankind evolved out of Africa, then migrated upwards, the original knowledge being taken with them.

 

[Humanistheart]

I put it this way pertaining to Jesus, deny the person if you will, but only a fool would deny the teachings.

Pertaining to whether or not the Nazorean Essenes were influenced by Buddhism, is a perceptional point. They may have been influenced by Buddhism, then again Buddhism may have been influenced by them. Certainly science suggests strongly that mankind evolved out of Africa, then migrated upwards, the original knowledge being taken with them.

Bhuddism evolved long after that migration, as did jewish and christian theology. Hebrew scripture borrows a lot from other cultures, this may be no different.

 

[no-body]

There was no sect awaiting a christs return as a christ hadn't come yet, and I don't believe anyone was expecting jesus to resurrect.

Reading up on it you're right, I misspoke I meant the apostles. Jesus told them beforehand he would resurrect, according to the synoptic gospels anyways, which where written decades after the fact so I guess that's in question too.

 

[godnotgod]

"Factual" need not be "first-hand."

That only second hand accounts survived, in light of the 500 eyewitnesses, and zero first hand evidence survived, is highly suspect. This would be true had St. Paul only mentioned ONE "eyewitness".

Why should it be surprising or significant that the "500" didn't write anything down or that their writing didn't survive the ravages of time?

Because this was no ordinary historical "event", for one thing.

Also, St. Paul WAS a contemporary of Jesus. Get your facts straight.

No, he was not. No one can pinpoint the exact date of birth for St. Paul, but it varies from between 2 and 10 AD, depending on the source. Jesus was already dead by the time St. Paul was born.

Timeline of Apostle Paul's Life and Missionary Journeys: Paul's Birth to First Missionary Journey

Not so. Read Galatians.

Show me.

And that's in fact what happened. It got a lot of the testifiers killed.

I suppose the Romans made it a point to gather up every single one of the 500 eyewitnesses and kill them. So where is the written account of THAT event? Ooops! Surely they missed ONE, and he, knowing what was at stake, would have, like the Essenes at Qumran, produced secret documentation of the Resurrection and hidden it for future generations, or, at the least, have spread an oral tradition.

Instead....a perfect vacuum....until....miraculously....35 silent years later...wa! lah!...one charlatan named St. Paul pulls a rabbit out of a hat! Hurray!:foot:

Don't confuse what WE would be interested in with what ANCIENT JEWS might have been interested in.

Yeah, right! The Ancient Jews were far more sophisticated, as resurrections were a daily event in their world. "Go back to bed, Joe. Nothing to get your udders all in a bunch about. It's just some dude resurrecting himself....again! No biggeee!"

Again, why should this be surprising?

Well, DUH! Do you need it spelled out for you?

Spoken like someone without any real information.

That's the problem: there is no real information! What it amounts to is sheer unadulterated poppycock! Hey! Check out the king's new clothes! Nice, eh?

The argument involves:

(a) public execution
(b) burial
(c) empty tomb discovered
(d) appearances to single people and groups
(e) martyrdom of the witnesses
(f) survival of the movement beyond the death of the founder

So it's not as simplistic as you suggest.

On the contrary: what could possibly be more simplistic?

So you have your texts, and I have mine. I bet mine can beat up yours.

That's what some people resort to when their flimsy facade is exposed for what it is. Y'know what? That's exactly what the Christians did to the Gnostic texts, but, to the Christians' chagrin, the Gnostics not only survived, but now present a real threat to modern Christianity so much so that orthodox Christians are making a big stink over it, using every available means to discredit them. Not gonna happen.

Fact is, in this case, the few texts I have provided reference to are accounts by those who have no special interest nor ulterior motive in the subject matter.

 

[footprints]

Bhuddism evolved long after that migration, as did jewish and christian theology. Hebrew scripture borrows a lot from other cultures, this may be no different.

Yes Buddhism did evolve long after that migration, not before it.

Jewish and Christian philosophy is derived from Hebrew philosophy.

Which culture got what of who is purely perception based. The Persians for example had a different knowledge to the Jew, yet the Persians are of Hebrew ancestory, and genetics show this. So both derived their knowledge from the same source. Just different associations attached to it.

Yes, Jesus had many similar associations to the Buddhist. I would suggest this is what truth does. Were the paths of enlightenment left by Buddha and Jesus similar... I can tell you they aren't even close. The path that Jesus left is much more direct and can be applied to a person in a matter of weeks, the path that Buddha left was a lot more gentle on the mind and can takes years or as suggested even lifetimes to conclude, yet each takes a person to the same spot, Nirvana.

 

[Dunemeister]

I put it this way pertaining to Jesus, deny the person if you will, but only a fool would deny the teachings.

\

Except that the teachings are largely about the person. so if you deny the person, you automatically deny the teachings. Part of the point here is that Jesus was not simply spouting aphoristic wisdom that was not essentially related to a particular time and crisis; nor can we parse his teaching about (what we call) ethics from (what we call) theology. Nor can we separate either of those from his teachings about himself.

 

[Dunemeister]

That only second hand accounts survived, in light of the 500 eyewitnesses, and zero first hand evidence survived, is highly suspect. This would be true had St. Paul only mentioned ONE "eyewitness".

That you find this situation highly suspect says more about your psychology than it says about the probitive value of second and third hand accounts.

Because this was no ordinary historical "event", for one thing.

No doubt. So what?

No, he was not. No one can pinpoint the exact date of birth for St. Paul, but it varies from between 2 and 10 AD, depending on the source. Jesus was already dead by the time St. Paul was born.

He actively persecuted the community Jesus began around 33 AD. For him to be able to do that, he had to have been a contemporary of Jesus. So nyah!

Timeline of Apostle Paul's Life and Missionary Journeys: Paul's Birth to First Missionary Journey

I see your reliance on Web sources continues unperturbed.

Show me.

Why, can't you read?

I suppose the Romans made it a point to gather up every single one of the 500 eyewitnesses and kill them. So where is the written account of THAT event? Ooops! Surely they missed ONE, and he, knowing what was at stake, would have, like the Essenes at Qumran, produced secret documentation of the Resurrection and hidden it for future generations, or, at the least, have spread an oral tradition.

Who says the Romans killed the 500? I didn't say that. Your desire to make the believer appear the fool is backfiring.

Instead....a perfect vacuum....until....miraculously....35 silent years later...wa! lah!...one charlatan named St. Paul pulls a rabbit out of a hat! Hurray!:foot:

Who says those years were silent?

Yeah, right! The Ancient Jews were far more sophisticated, as resurrections were a daily event in their world. "Go back to bed, Joe. Nothing to get your udders all in a bunch about. It's just some dude resurrecting himself....again! No biggeee!"

No, they were probably just as skeptical, or even more so, than guys like Dawkins or yourself. Just so happens they were more rational....

Well, DUH! Do you need it spelled out for you?

Apparently.

That's the problem: there is no real information! What it amounts to is sheer unadulterated poppycock! Hey! Check out the king's new clothes! Nice, eh?

Ehw.....kay.

On the contrary: what could possibly be more simplistic?

The skeptical arguments.

That's what some people resort to when their flimsy facade is exposed for what it is. Y'know what? That's exactly what the Christians did to the Gnostic texts, but, to the Christians' chagrin, the Gnostics not only survived, but now present a real threat to modern Christianity so much so that orthodox Christians are making a big stink over it, using every available means to discredit them. Not gonna happen.

Your lack of a sense of humour is duly noted.

Fact is, in this case, the few texts I have provided reference to are accounts by those who have no special interest nor ulterior motive in the subject matter.

That's got to be about the most naive thing I've ever seen written.

 

[Ba'al]

Slim as it is, word got out and now over half the world believes Jesus died and rose again (Christians and Muslims) and most of the rest have heard about it, so what survived didnt do too badly.

Muslims don't really believe in the resurrection because they don't believe he died on the cross.

Quran(4:157) "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"

 

[dogsgod]

First of all, Paul wrote about revelations, which were visions he had of a resurrected Christ. He wrote that others had these visions as well. Paul never wrote that anyone witnessed a crucifixion, nor did he mention an empty tomb. No one mentions an empty tomb until the gospels are written in the late sixties or so.

 

[footprints]

\

Except that the teachings are largely about the person. so if you deny the person, you automatically deny the teachings. Part of the point here is that Jesus was not simply spouting aphoristic wisdom that was not essentially related to a particular time and crisis; nor can we parse his teaching about (what we call) ethics from (what we call) theology. Nor can we separate either of those from his teachings about himself.

The teachings were all about the person, meaning the individual, that is what any path of enlightenment is about. It isn't about the fella next door or the woman who lives up the street, it isn't even about people who share the same home, it is all about the self.

The path of enlightenment left by Buddha is similar to that of Muhammad, albeit Buddha wandered the land and discussed his findings with other people who followed the traditional Hindu path of enlightenment as he did, whilst Muhammad went to a cave and was left in silence with his own thinking. Jesus is said to have gone to the desert where he was tempted by the Devil, but again just as with Muhammad, left to his own thinking.

On return, Buddha passed his path of enlightenment on. This path pertains to meditation and the continual questioning of the self, its reasons and motives for doing anything. When done in full, in accordance with Buddhas instructions, the end resutant should be, that each person irrespective of whether they oppose each other or not, uses the same justifications, excuses and reasons. One person is no better than any other.

Muhammads path is built upon justifications, justify enough and a person will get back to the beginning again. This path though is fraught with danger, for if a person doesn't travel the full path of justification as Muhammad did, they will forever live with the justifications, reasons and excuses they stop at, which can turn to truth in their minds eye. This is the mindset of the greater human population whether they be theist, atheist or otherwise. If travelled in full this path leads to the same conclusion as Buddha, that no person is better than any other.

The path that Jesus left was to directly challenge human intelligence within the self, not to stop at the first justification, excuse and reason a person may give to themselves for being a nice person, or which appeared to make the self right, but to push past this comfort zone. The knowledge now learned about the self, should make the body feel uncomfortable enough to force a change, for when they look at themselves from a base of total reality, they should find they are not as nice a person as they thought they were. That in fact, their own intelligence had lied to them. When travelled in full, this path leads to the same conclusion as Buddha and Muhammad, that no person is better than any other.

Three different paths, three different ways of doing it, yet when each path is travelled its full distance in accord to the instructions given, all three paths lead to the same place, Nirvana.

 

[godnotgod]

First of all, Paul wrote about revelations, which were visions he had of a resurrected Christ. He wrote that others had these visions as well. Paul never wrote that anyone witnessed a crucifixion, nor did he mention an empty tomb. No one mentions an empty tomb until the gospels are written in the late sixties or so.

Thanks for bringing this to light. The distinction must be made between that of 500 eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection of Jesus as it occurred, and 500 eyewitnesses who claim they saw Jesus after he died.

So now we have a situation in which no one actually witnessed the resurrection itself, save for the story of the Roman guards at the tomb. We don't have their testimony either.

Strange that Jesus decides to show himself to those not belonging to his own.

You see, Jesus did not like to make big deals of things, like changing water into wine, raisng the dead, instantly healing lepers, claiming he was the messiah, and the like. He was a quiet sort, whose resurrection he preferred to keep away from curious eyes. Of course, the resurrection is touted as being the proof that Jesus was God, so something is wrong with this story. If anything, he would have made sure the entire world saw him gloriously rise into the ethosphere.

The latest findings indicate that scraps of helium balloons have been unearthed strewn around the tomb area. Could it be that....?

Nah!

 

[Smoke]

Why should it be surprising or significant that the "500" didn't write anything down or that their writing didn't survive the ravages of time? Also, St. Paul WAS a contemporary of Jesus. Get your facts straight.

Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, but not a follower, and there's no reason to think he ever knew Jesus.

So, Paul says there were five hundred people who saw the resurrected Jesus. There were tens of thousands of witnesses to the miracle of the sun at Fatima. About a hundred thousand people witnessed the apparition of the Mother of God at Zeitoun. Numerous people throughout history said they witnessed the descent of the Holy Fire. Tens of thousands of people claim to have been cured of incurable diseases by practicing Falun Dafa. Hundreds of people claim to have been abducted by aliens, and countless people claimto have seen ghosts.

I would suggest that relatively few people believe in supernatural events even in the face of direct, first-hand testimony. Hardly anybody believes on the basis of a vague, second-hand testimony.