Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

[Spartan]

He asked me to prove Jesus was not burried in the tomb, this is what wiki says about the tombs people were burried in.
Rock tombs were the province of the wealthy; the common people were buried in the ground.

First of all, Jesus was no common individual. He healed the sick and raised the dead and convinced more than one pharisee that he was legitimate enough to let him have the tomb.

Second, you made a broad-brush statement. There were probably many exceptions to what you and Wiki believe about that.

Third, you have zero evidence that applied specifically to Jesus.

Fourth, the Gospels blow your claim completely out of the water.

 

[Spartan]

Using the bible to prove something that outside sources
can demonstrate are fiction is even worse.

Which outside source has proven the resurrection to be fiction?

 

[Audie]

Which outside source has proven the resurrection to be fiction?

Dont be simple. I made not the least suggestion
of that obvious imposdibility.
This ressurrection thing is your obsession not worth
a tenth of the response it has gotten.

People use bible-quotes to "prove" nonsense like
flood, ecodus, the six day poof, etc.

That is what I was referring to.

 

[Audie]

First of all, Jesus was no common individual. He healed the sick and raised the dead and convinced more than one pharisee that he was legitimate enough to let him have the tomb.

Second, you made a broad-brush statement. There were probably many exceptions to what you and Wiki believe about that.

Third, you have zero evidence that applied specifically to Jesus.

Fourth, the Gospels blow your claim completely out of the water.

You SAY he healed the sick. Tent-preachers do it every day,
to much more recent testimony. Evidence? Ha, ha.
Right.

When you trot out specious "evidence"
you go on auto-lose, as you may have
noticed by the response your silliness
has gotten.

 

[Spartan]

You SAY he healed the sick. Tent-preachers do it every day,
to much more recent testimony. Evidence? Ha, ha.
Right.

When you trot out specious "evidence"
you go on auto-lose, as you may have
noticed by the response your silliness
has gotten.

Well, you haven't been the least bit convincing that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are incorrect. In fact, the number of people in the Gospels / New Testament, etc., who would have to be loons or liars so you can be correct is overwhelming.

 

[Audie]

Well, you haven't been the least bit convincing that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are incorrect. In fact, the number of people in the Gospels / New Testament, etc., who would have to be loons or liars so you can be correct is overwhelming.

"Loons or liars" is such a moldy overused empty
cliche, but we dont expect thought,
let alone creative thought from cultists.

In the event, my remsrks were about the
the opposite of convincin you, but rather
your abject failure to convince anyone of
anyyhing, other than you could use a more
pleasant demeanour, and if you dont mind my
aspersing your svholarship, a fact or two.

 

[Riders]

First of all, Jesus was no common individual. He healed the sick and raised the dead and convinced more than one pharisee that he was legitimate enough to let him have the tomb.

Second, you made a broad-brush statement. There were probably many exceptions to what you and Wiki believe about that.

Third, you have zero evidence that applied specifically to Jesus.

Fourth, the Gospels blow your claim completely out of the water.

Wiki also says people hung on the cross were considered to be criminals and poor people and usually left to rot on the cross.

 

[Riders]

This has always been an absurd argument.

First of all, if the Bible is true then you're kicking the truth to the curb. Better would be to investigate its claims to see if they have merit.

Second, and most important, the Gospels and New Testament were not "the Bible" in the 1st and 2nd centuries. They were instead independent manuscripts written by mostly different authors, at different time, and in different places. As such they are independent confirmations.

There are many other bibles from other faiths with gobs of people from the past who witnessed the miracles etc from their leaders too how do you explain that?

 

[Riders]

First of all, Jesus was no common individual. He healed the sick and raised the dead and convinced more than one pharisee that he was legitimate enough to let him have the tomb.

Second, you made a broad-brush statement. There were probably many exceptions to what you and Wiki believe about that.

Third, you have zero evidence that applied specifically to Jesus.

Fourth, the Gospels blow your claim completely out of the water.

Heres what the Baha'i bible says it say Bahaulla performed miracles
for the Manifestations these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent. – A

Thats how the gospels are, theya re not proof for any of us here now.

 

[Riders]

First of all, Jesus was no common individual. He healed the sick and raised the dead and convinced more than one pharisee that he was legitimate enough to let him have the tomb.

Second, you made a broad-brush statement. There were probably many exceptions to what you and Wiki believe about that.

Third, you have zero evidence that applied specifically to Jesus.

Fourth, the Gospels blow your claim completely out of the water.

Here is a less broad statement infact this is typically what happened to those nailed to the cross. From WIki:
In Roman-style crucifixion, the condemned could take up to a few days to die, but death was sometimes hastened by human action. "The attending Roman guards could leave the site only after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."[56] The Romans sometimes broke the prisoner's legs to hasten death and usually forbade burial.[91] On the other hand, the person was often deliberately kept alive as long as possible to prolong their suffering and humiliation, so as to provide the maximum deterrent effect.[88] Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals.[88][105]

In Islam


This is what historians go by..........................

 

[Spartan]

Here is a less broad statement infact this is typically what happened to those nailed to the cross. From WIki:

Wiki is a secular rag that has been proven wrong any number of times.

This is what historians go by..........................

No. You totally ignored the OP, and the section on how to do history. So here it is again.

The Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection, Part 2: How To Do History

 

[Spartan]

Heres what the Baha'i bible says it say Bahaulla performed miracles

I don't care about Bahaulla. I don't believe their Bible. In fact, I consider it anti-Christian and full of errors.

Christians Answer Bahais

 

[night912]

This has always been an absurd argument.

First of all, if the Bible is true then you're kicking the truth to the curb. Better would be to investigate its claims to see if they have merit.

And that's what was done. The bible is the claim, therefore, outside sources are need to investigate if the claims have merit. Investigating the claims and then using those claims as evidence to support the claims, is what's known as being circular.

Second, and most important, the Gospels and New Testament were not "the Bible" in the 1st and 2nd centuries. They were instead independent manuscripts written by mostly different authors, at different time, and in different places. As such they are independent confirmations.

To use the gospels and the new testament to prove the gospels and the new testament is circular reasoning. There, now it's been correctly used.

And you're wrong about what is the claim and what is the source and whether or not it's independent. Pertaining the resurrection, the investigations and debates that are being done is not to "prove" whether there is an independent resurrection of Jesus. It's purpose is to "prove" whether or not the gospels and new testament were indeed factual. More specifically, if those stories are historical facts or not. This is what a lot of people have misunderstood. The claims are the stories itself, not the book(s), manuscripts, scrolls, etc. This is why it doesn't matter if the stories in the bible were separate works before being consolidated into the book called, the bible. So your second point is not important at all.

 

[night912]

No. You totally ignored the OP, and the section on how to do history. So here it is again.

The Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection, Part 2: How To Do History

Actually, the article has many flaws in it. I'll go into detail later, but for this particular comment, you ignored two important principles.

The Principle Of Historical Fit
You completely ignored this principle and use special pleading for your argument. That's evidence going against your argument because it's showing that the resurrection story was historically inaccurate with the time.

The Principle Of Multiple Attestation
And of course this principle. The resurrection argument ignores this, probably the most important principle. There is no first hand documented source of the resurrection.

 

[Riders]

Wiki is a secular rag that has been proven wrong any number of times.



No. You totally ignored the OP, and the section on how to do history. So here it is again.

The Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection, Part 2: How To Do History

If all historians as you claimed agreed there is evidence Jesus rose from the dead, 100 percent of all historians would be Christian and the majority of the world would be. But Christianity is losing people because in part the lack of evidence.

 

[Riders]

I don't care about Bahaulla. I don't believe their Bible. In fact, I consider it anti-Christian and full of errors.

Christians Answer Bahais

The point is all the other bibles have messiahs who did miracles too Buddha, Hare Krishna etc...........they could say the same thing about their bible, I am sure Krishna had thousands of people who claimed to see him do miracles too.

So for you to be able to use the bible to prove the bible is circular, but every other religion can do the same thing you do and you would not be able tot ell them theirs is not historical either, Jesus is just like all the other messiahs!

 

[night912]

Spartan,

Out of curiosity, what were the crimes that Jesus was accused and charge with?

 

[night912]

I don't care about Bahaulla. I don't believe their Bible. In fact, I consider it anti-Christian and full of errors.

Christians Answer Bahais

This is actually a good reason and it's a good example. Since their claims are their scriptures, the bible can be use as an outside source to verify if their scripture has any merit. Using their own scripture would then make it circular.

 

[McBell]

To use the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning.

Is it though?
The Bible is a collection of books brought together because they support a common theme, right?

If I were to gather up let us say 100 articles that explain evolution and put them all in one book, are you saying that anything referencing those articles is circular reasoning?

 

[Spartan]

Actually, the article has many flaws in it. I'll go into detail later, but for this particular comment, you ignored two important principles.

The Principle Of Historical Fit
You completely ignored this principle and use special pleading for your argument. That's evidence going against your argument because it's showing that the resurrection story was historically inaccurate with the time.

"historically inaccurate with the time"? Please explain.

The Principle Of Multiple Attestation

And of course this principle. The resurrection argument ignores this, probably the most important principle. There is no first hand documented source of the resurrection.

Yeah, there is. Early church fathers confirm traditional Gospel authors - including eyewitnesses Matthew and John.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel