Why Don’t You Believe Jesus Rose From The Grave?

[LuisDantas]

It's like asking a mathematician to evaluate art.

Ciao.

... you realize you are taking things entirely backwards and apparently not even noticing it?

Best of luck.

 

[1213]

A dead cell does not have all the parts of a living cell.
...
Necrosis is an unprogrammed death of cells, which involves early plasma membrane changes leading to loss of calcium and sodium imbalance. This causes acidosis, osmotic shock, clumping of chromatin and nuclear pyknosis. These changes are accompanied by a loss of oxidative phosphorylation, a drop in ATP production, and a loss of homeostatic capability. There are also mitochondrial changes which include calcium overload and activation of phospholipases leading to membrane diffusion signals, a stage of irreversible damage. The secondary stage involves swelling of the lysosome, dilation of the endoplasmic reticulum, a leakage of enzymes and proteins and a loss of compartmentalization.

Ok, thank you, so reversing those should make the cell living again?

 

[sayak83]

Ok, thank you, so reversing those should make the cell living again?

Cannot be reversed. Against laws of physics (2nd law of thermodynamics). Same reason you cannot reverse ash back into wood after burning.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you not see at all how silly it sounds to think a human was dead and then came back to life?

I said no to this question.

The clinical/literally/physically dead never come back to life, it is silly indeed to think that any of them ever came back to life, please, right?

Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why Don’t You Believe Jesus Rose From The Grave?​

Because extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
And this particular extra-ordinary claim doesn't even have ordinary evidence.

 

[firedragon]

... you realize you are taking things entirely backwards and apparently not even noticing it?

Best of luck.

Ad hominem.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

He did come out of his grave. Even Lazarus came out of his grave. He was counted among the dead, just like Lazarus was counted among the dead. He lived through a crucifixion was placed in his catacomb cave to live the rest of his short life in pain, suffocating, starving and of dehydration. He was counted among the dead, but someone removed the stone and like Lazarus, he walked out ... somehow. He was so badly beaten, his own people didn't even recognize him. An angel of the Lord did it, who sat on top the stone they moved afterward, as if daring anyone to challenge him/her. The soldiers guarding the tomb laying dead in front of it. That's what the bible states about it anyway. How could he have died if he walked out? Why didn't his people recognize him if he wasn't beaten that badly? He was certainly expected to die and counted as such, but he lived ... obviously.

Isn't it clear that there are numerous contradictions and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible?
According to the Bible, which is considered to be the word of God, the creator did the following as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
It's difficult to believe in the resurrection of Jesus when the creator of the universe seems to lack basic knowledge of Astronomy, despite the claim that the Bible represents God's word. It seems evident that this is a fundamental oversight on the part of the Creator, who should possess knowledge of Astronomy.
800 errors in a Book that is Gods word and I am supposed to believe the part about the resurrection

He did come out of his grave. Even Lazarus came out of his grave. He was counted among the dead, just like Lazarus was counted among the dead. He lived through a crucifixion was placed in his catacomb cave to live the rest of his short life in pain, suffocating, starving and of dehydration. He was counted among the dead, but someone removed the stone and like Lazarus, he walked out ... somehow. He was so badly beaten, his own people didn't even recognize him. An angel of the Lord did it, who sat on top the stone they moved afterward, as if daring anyone to challenge him/her. The soldiers guarding the tomb laying dead in front of it. That's what the bible states about it anyway. How could he have died if he walked out? Why didn't his people recognize him if he wasn't beaten that badly? He was certainly expected to die and counted as such, but he lived ... obviously.

No, you're not supposed to believe anything other than what has been placed on you to believe. I couldn't care less about how you view the life, death, and resurrection of the man named Jesus. I couldn't care less about how you view the bible, nor how you are unwilling to divide the content of it and separate the truth from error. It would be nice if a little intellectual honesty was displayed, but again ... This is not required nor expected. While truth comes in many forms and in many texts and through many people, no one really expects you believe anything other than what you're capable of believing. Brain games, perception and how we process data, including old texts isn't something many understand, but ... you are a thinking being and able according to own unique ability. You simply may not be able to effectively process and interpret things not meant for you to accurately interpret. That's ok, these aren't your roots anyway. They are mine, and I don't really care what you might think you understand about them.

Is the Bible the word of God

 

[Balthazzar]

Isn't it clear that there are numerous contradictions and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible?
According to the Bible, which is considered to be the word of God, the creator did the following as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
It's difficult to believe in the resurrection of Jesus when the creator of the universe seems to lack basic knowledge of Astronomy, despite the claim that the Bible represents God's word. It seems evident that this is a fundamental oversight on the part of the Creator, who should possess knowledge of Astronomy.
800 errors in a Book that is Gods word and I am supposed to believe the part about the resurrection



Is the Bible the word of God

As I understand the Word (Logos) it's everything and not limited to a single book, and I take special care to rightly divide it, although I'm not always 100% or even 10%, but that's the aim. To rightly divide the Word of truth, we are required to search things out and hold true to what is true. That's the Christian way as I understand it and this goes far beyond the scriptures, but the scriptures are part of the Word. Again, I don't expect you to believe anything you are incapable of believing. Blind men don't make very good guides and without some evidence being substantiated, faith becomes moot due to it having no works. Grace? Well, daft is an operative term for many of us and it's sometimes by the hair of our chinny chin chins that we are "saved" at all.

This popped up after I made an inquiry about Greek philosophers on you tube. It appears Socrates didn't make out as well as others have, but he did understand a basic premise about understanding. I call it critical thinking. Apparently, it's called the Socratic method.

Go figure.

 

[paarsurrey]

Because extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
And this particular extra-ordinary claim doesn't even have ordinary evidence. (Jesus rising from the dead)

Rightly said, he (Jesus),never rose from the dead, as he did not die on the Cross in the first place.

Regards

 

[Brian2]

They don't.

The thing is .. when somebody is sent for execution, what happens is in the hands of the executioner.
However, G-d is able to do all things.

..and that includes save him from his enemies.
It is indeed possible, that it appeared to be the case, that he died on the cross, but in fact did not.
That would explain why he asked a disciple to feel his wounds .. no?

Jesus did predict to his disciples in the gospels that he would be killed and rise again from the dead. He also told His disciples that the Messiah's suffering and death was needed and prophesied.
By denying it, Islam denies that Jesus died for the redemption of many.

 

[Brian2]

And do you have evidence that the resurrection is literal.
And how to you decide what is literal and what is not

There is evidence that the resurrection is true, but there is not proof of it. I believe it to be true and others believe other world views without proof.
There is no reason to think that the resurrection could not have taken place and did not take place.
If I had evidence that there were things in the Bible that were not true then I would consider the evidence and sometimes see that the evidence seems to be the truth and so I might end up seeing that a literal understanding of a passage in the Bible is not correct. So when I read in the Bible that the earth is immoveable, I realise that it was not meant to be a scientific statement about whether the earth moves or not.

 

[Sargonski]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

Only the soul of Jesus rose from the Grave - as does everyone's soul upon death .. where-upon we choose a new vacation destination ... and at such point are "reborn" in the fleshy abode we have chosen on one of millions of planets .. "vacation destinations" --- heaven being a way-station in between vacations if you like.

 

[Brian2]

The clinical/literally/physically dead never come back to life, it is silly indeed to think that any of them ever came back to life, please, right?

Regards

Does that mean that you think that it is impossible for God to ever resurrect the dead?

 

[Brian2]

Insult me all you want; at the end of the day you have not convinced me that I should bother with what you think about me.

Regardless, the claims for a historical Jesus are so flimsy that I have to wonder if the people who make them realize that the existence of early Christianity isn't in itself decisive evidence for such a person having existed.

If you read the Gospels, they work a lot better if Jesus is understood to have always been fictional.

Explains, among other things, how come the 12 years old boy vanishes from sight, returns eighteen years later, and there isn't even any attempt to explain how come they know it is the same person.

You may find the case for a historical Jesus convincing, @Brian2 . That is your privilege to exert. But I sure do not, and I am not about to ask for your permission or support.

All the best.

All I have to do is to look at Paul and his writings to see that the existence of Jesus was known to the early church and that nobody was saying "Jesus? Jesus who?", not even the Jews of the time. Jesus was a known historical figure then and nothing has changed.
I hope you don't think it an insult that my saying that your wearing of glasses must mean that you are partly blind. It is probably just a fact, as my wearing of glasses shows the same thing about me, and does not mean that I am intelligent.
All the best four eyes.

 

[Brian2]

History tends to have so many elements that writers have options about what to focus on. In the modern age there is no reason to assume the Gospels, and Bible as a whole, relays accurate history at face value. That some stories include real places, and even real people, does not mean or suggest it's all true. Dickens A Tale of Two Cities is fictional but is set in both London and paris. For Whom The Bell Tolls follows fictional Characetrs during the Spanish Civil War. The book The Cauldron is about a fictional British unit during the battle of Arnhem in September, 1944.

And opinions about the historicity of the gospels and the evolution of Christian beliefs are not "history" even if you might think that those opinions are what actually happened.

Why do you need and/or want to believe in a supernatural at all? It's been explained to you that tere's no evidence of any supernatural phenomenon existing.

As you admit, it's your belief. But you seem powerless to change your decision. It appears to be like an addiction to belief in this set of ideas, and being afraid of what you might be without it. This is how Christianity and Ilslam have exploited the natural naivte of humans and manipulated their fears. Religious belief is how these manipulated folks cope with the fears religion inflates.

I have met people who say that the only reason that people cannot fly is that they have been told that since they were little.
Many people have been told that God is not real and any historical evidence of God is rubbish and the only reason people believe it is because they have been told since little.

This is projection. Sorry, it's a fact that no supernatural phenomenon is known to exist. Feel free to offer actual, verifiable expamples. No beliefs, no assumptions, no dogma, actual examples. If you can't offer any examples of real supernatural phenomenon, then there is no reason for anyone to believe it's real.

Neither of us can prove our view on the supernatural or offer verifiable evidence. We believe our views on faith.

This is your dogma talking. Typical to vilify experts and fact-finding by theists who feel threatened. Why not be self-aware of your fear of being wrong and adjust your religious beliefs instead?

I don't want to be wrong, true.
History scholars are meant to be neutral about the supernatural but in fact they reject it in their historical work, true.

I asked you for examples, and if you have none, then it is sound thinking to reject the claims of a supernatural existing. And you are dead wrong to assume it too.

You can believe that if you want to.

No, ancient people often wrote in an embellished and abstract form. The Enlightenment exposed thos form of writing as more prose than history. And the only liars are modern believers who insist the ancient texts are true at face value, and any critic is flawed in some way for acknowledging reality. You can place yourself in that category if you prefer.

The enlightenment did not expose the Bible as more prose than history. That is just opinion about all supernatural events in historical writings. That is just what scholarship does, reject the supernatural. Some people then think that since scholarship cannot tell us that the supernatural in historical documents is real, that means that it is not real.
Even historians, who are meant to be neutral about religions and the supernatural etc end up assuming that the supernatural elements are not true and end up in circular arguments about for example, when the gospels must have been written and by whom.

More projection. How is being a rational thinking that seeks truth trapped in any way? As I noted, the trap is the religious dogma that believers can't escape from.

If people say that the only way to find real truth is through empiricism, physical evidence, then they end up saying that the only way to find the truth about things that by definition, leave no physical evidence, is through physical evidence. This of course is no more than faith in your empirical dogma.
You have faith in your empirical dogma even when it comes to things that there cannot be physical evidence for.
Then of course you deny that and just repeat that there must be physical evidence or it is not real. You deny that you use faith.
I don't mind admitting that I use faith when it comes to my beliefs about stuff where there cannot be physical evidence.

Then how can you write the statement in the previous quote by referring to the scriptures as "truth" that is rejected by critical thinkers? You admit it's accepted on faith which isn't what critical thinkers do. See how you have very sloppy and careless thinking?

Critical thinkers cannot recognise when they use faith or not.

Bad wording, as I have no such belief. The Bible itself has many fantastic elements that aren't factual, so can be doubted at face value. The Jesus myth is not plausible, and requires an assumption of a supernatural working behind the scenes, of which there is no evdience. And the theoology of the Jesus story is absurd, as why would a God need to impregnate a women, so the son grows up, only to be executed later so God can have a sacrifice that allows the forgiving of the sins of mankind? God could just have forgiven the sins without all that drama. What was the point of torturing some poor guy when God didn't really need to? So if a person believes all this it surely does not leave a very good impression of Yahweh. Oh, and let's not forget that Yahweh was an old Cannanite god that was part of a system of other gods, including his partner Ashera. Whatever happened to her?

So now you seem to be saying that Jesus may have existed and so you don't believe the story of Jesus is not true.
As for Ashera, the Bible tells us about her and why she became involved in the religion of Israel.
If you want to believe the scholarly version, that Israelites were really Canaanites and that Yahweh was originally part of Canaanite religion, that is up to you.
The oldest mention of Yahweh however is in an Egyptian temple (Soleb Inscription) and talks of a wondering group of nomads (nomads of Yahweh) to the north of Egypt around 1400 BC.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have met people who say that the only reason that people cannot fly is that they have been told that since they were little.

There will always be people who hold blatantly irrational beliefs.

 

[Jimmy]

Only the soul of Jesus rose from the Grave - as does everyone's soul upon death .. where-upon we choose a new vacation destination ... and at such point are "reborn" in the fleshy abode we have chosen on one of millions of planets .. "vacation destinations" --- heaven being a way-station in between vacations if you like.

I think the word soul is a fancy way of saying person

 

[PearlSeeker]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

Why? Because the documentation is flawed.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I feel Jesus’ presence.

I know that feeling but it's subjective and unreliable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus did predict to his disciples in the gospels that he would be killed and rise again from the dead..

Jesus himself, did not.
It is reported that Jesus told his disciples that he would be betrayed, and sentenced to death,
and that he would survive the ordeal.

..and you will of course wish to produce the exact wording of the author of the Gospel, as
it was clearly believed by many at the time, that he actually died. This is in line with what the Qur'an
teaches us. i.e. that it appeared to be the case

He also told His disciples that the Messiah's suffering and death was needed and prophesied.

No .. I think not. This is of course what Orthodox Christians believe .. they make their
religion revolve around it .. when it should be revolved around the first commandment,
as in Islam and Judaism.