• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?

These are just nice stories written in a book. And that is the sole source of your "evidence": one book.

Like those books about UFO abductions, or Elvis being alive, and such. Also with a lot of eye witnesses. Not to speak of the thousands of myths about miracles and such from competing religions.

So, are UFO abductions and zombie Elvis the best answer to the evidence, or can we imagine other alternatives?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time.
That must have been pretty mainstream. Didn't many graves ripped open, and many saints resurrected from their tombs to wander round town, at the time of Jesus cruxifiction? At least according to the same book?

That did not seem to have impressed many at the scene.

Ciao

- viole
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?

The bible is about faith, not evidence. The evidence of Christianity is what you prove in your
own private life.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?

Seriously ill, a couple of days ago, emerging from the blood draw lab with multiple blood draws, I saw an encaustic of Jesus, and noted the nail holes in his hands and feet. I looked at mine.....I looked at his. I noted that we are/were good people.

People were expecting a second coming of Christ. The bible says that in the second coming, Christ will have a tongue like a sword (no doubt using it as a weapon, in his continuing quest to stamp out greed, lies, and apathy). Isn't that what I do?

If people believe, without evidence, why not believe in me? Why believe in the real Christ when he makes his second coming? I suspect that our jaded society would not even recognize Christ if he came and announced his presence. Everyone would say, "that's not Christ" because this person has real parents. But doesn't everyone have real parents? Well.....Jesus's dad was God, so both of his parents were not tangible (though some say that God is real regardless).

There is no evidence that God exists. Faith is belief without evidence. But that might lead to believing in the wrong Messiah, or believing the wrong religion, or believing in the wrong sect of the religion. Certainly belief without proof gets Christians to follow pastors who are not following God. Reverend Jimmy Swaggart hired prostitutes. Reverend Jim Bakker (and wife Tammy Fay) stole donations to starving Africans to pay for their mansion. Reverend Robert Schuller's son is spending down the $50 million for the Crystal Cathedral sale (his own personal money, not the church's money, though donors thought that they were donating to the church), as been recently photographed with booze in one arm, a scantily clad woman in his other arm, and his pants down and his penis sticking out in public. He is also the president of a Christian college, Liberty University.

Belief without proof leads to following pastors who don't seem to be following Christ.

Jesus was Jewish. Back in those days Jews looked differently than they do today. As Semitics, they looked like their Semitic brethren, the Arabs (dark hair, dark skin, hairy). Mixing genetics with their new neighbors, the Germans, they picked up DNA from blonds and other races. Today, Jewish DNA is from various sources around the world, and Jewish appearance reflects that diversity.

So, when Jesus went to his grave, he went as a Jew (dark), and when he rose from the grave, he came back with white hair, red eyes, and bronze feet (perhaps from rubbing his feet with oil after walking on hot sand).

So, Christ didn't look anything like his original appearance when he rose from the dead. Does this different appearance confirm or deny that he was Christ?

Did He Or Didn't He? Jewish Views of the Resurrection of Jesus

Link says: "The Lubavitch Chasidim were hailing their rebbe, the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson, as King Messiah. He had died two years earlier, yet they were expecting him to rise from his grave.

5 Times the Disciples Did not Believe Jesus had Risen

Link says: "5 times, the apostles didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus."
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
These are just nice stories written in a book. And that is the sole source of your "evidence": one book.

Like those books about UFO abductions, or Elvis being alive, and such. Also with a lot of eye witnesses. Not to speak of the thousands of myths about miracles and such from competing religions.

So, are UFO abductions and zombie Elvis the best answer to the evidence, or can we imagine other alternatives?

Ciao

- viole
At least we have first-person accounts of UFO abductions and Elvis sightings, we have none of these for Jesus sightings.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Sylvester Clark said:
Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?

Yeah....sure.
1 He didn' t actuallyd die on the cross but was taken down alive.
2 Pilate released him to appease the people who loved Jesus.

I agree with one's point number 1 above.
Any clue/evidence for the second one, please.?

Regards
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?
A bodily resurrection is totally in keeping with the expectations that existed amongst the Pharisees at the time that Jesus lived.

Jesus confounded the Sadducees when they attempted to prove that bodily resurrection was illogical [Matthew 12:23]. Jesus stated that in resurrection there is no marriage. Clearly he was talking about a literal bodily resurrection because spiritual resurrection (being born again) does not prevent a person from being married.

IMO, the Bible is all we need as evidence for the resurrection of the dead. The teaching is found in various passages in the Tanakh: Job 19:26; Psalm 17:15; lsaiah 26:19: Daniel 12:2 and Ezekiel 37., and testimony to Jesus Christ's resurrection is given by all the apostles, and by others.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says, 'And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then all of the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time.'
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member


As i said, my opinion is based on knowledge of roman practices (for which there is historical evidence), medical reality (for which there is current evidence) and logic. Of course others believe differently, i say to them show me your evidence.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?
The superstitious religious enemies of Jesus literally got angry with him for performing miracles. They didn't deny the obvious miracles, rather they reasoned in their minds that he got his power from Satan. They sought to stop Jesus by killing him via the Roman occupiers. Little did Israel realize that their problems with Jesus had only just begun!
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
175183842_10224768738981194_3254093302163868989_n.jpg
 

MatthewA

Active Member
I just simply believe Jesus Christ was risen again by God. (Romans 10:9) (Romans 5:1-5) (Romans 8:11) (Romans 6:1-10

Now there are differing views about if we are going to have psychical bodies, or spiritual bodies. (1 Corinthians 2:10)

Personally believe considering the bible talks about (John 5:29) resurrection: all people are going to be resurrected, and each given their own special spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15) that they will be housed in which the person will be able to enjoy.

When it comes to my belief on the bible; according to the Revelation 22:13-21) It makes statements as though people who were not believers (placed outside the kingdom of God) are still alive and doing whatever they desire while outside the presence of God. (Hebrews 11:6)

While those were were believers, are resurrected and go on to be with God after resurrection.


These could be wrong, but this is what was learned from the bible itself after years of study : You must take it for what its worth and see if any of it is true or not, take care ~ and have a great rest of the day.
 
Last edited:

Sylvester Clark

New Member
Sylvester Clark said:
Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?



I agree with one's point number 1 above.
Any clue/evidence for the second one, please.?

Regards

What evidence do you have for the claim that Jesus was not actually crucified?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?

We'd also have to hand-wave or explain away:

1) The early explosion of Christianity among Jews, who risked expulsion from Jewish life

2) The explosion of Christianity in Rome, despite heavy, deadly persecution

3) The influence of Jesus on world culture and history--by FAR the most influential person, ever

4) Miracles and healings among born agains

5) Etc., etc.

. . . you're on the right track, brother!
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When you are a human claiming creation as a thesis to think it is about O earth one a God by human explanation. Story the fallen angels who survived. Suns as gods still in hell.

Is what you said as an ancient human scientist.

Planet earth first one God released its evil hot spirit explained as a fake sex act with the womb space. Mother of God. Science symbolism.

Space womb conceived by void vacuum it's spirit immaculate heavens. Colder gases.

Origin gases released by mountain a volcano law. Not direct out of stone reasoning. Science.

Not a human story.

So if earth a non alight gas spirit becomes heated burning it comes alive. A theme to explain false theism.

Only the heavenly vacuum owned light constant. Not science.

Removes original sin......saves an open tomb instead space the highest body in science. A hole. Theism.

The gas spirit of Ain Hebrew meaning zero s AIN t leave the stone tomb. Leave it empty as a sink hole.

Gas spirits gone move into atmosphere alive burning gases. Were we live. Own radiating transmissions that equate image by machine conditions. To transmit.

Designer is a bio human sees burnt human formed image. As a human whole life irradiated self. Sees evidence DNA losses by water removed to cool gases.

Science theme only as talking explaining reason that man in science caused sin.

Took knowledge from tree.

Garden nature wood. Burnt carbonized form. Teaching why.

Life began with nature the trees the teaching. Not with stone. A teaching.

Life after trees with trees.
Human reasoning of science.

What does earth as science have to do with a human living as a human?

Answer God O how the effect attacked sacrificed life the topic. Told by man theist thinker.

We are human.

Jesus just a name the topic is human life actually.

We all owned the first two human parents as DNA family. The same.

Ignored.

A human baby was born human.
A human baby grows into adult man tells a story why human life was sacrificed by earth sciences.

A human given dominion over all things a statement human.

Egotism.
 
Top