Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Left Coast]

Then maybe we can discuss the evidence that you don't believe 'stacks up'.

The thing is, I'm not sure it would do much good in this conversation, because the alleged evidence (or rather, lack thereof) isn't what convinced you to believe in the first place. I'd rather talk about what actually convinced you, since that's more relevant.

I think that the 'heart', as used in the Bible, is more akin to conscience than to raw emotion. The Psalms talk about 'meditation of the heart' and about our hearts being searched by the Spirit of God. This means that faith is not a blind belief but a response that comes from our deepest meditation and innermost core.

Again, you don't need faith if you have good reason to believe something. Faith only comes into play when we start discussing things for which there isn't good evidence. If people tell you to believe things for which there isn't good evidence, that should raise giant red flags.

Conscience is effected by events in life, and similarly, the heart can become hardened and devoid of compassion. This, l believe, is why the word of God is so powerful because it is able to reach those parts of our spiritual being that have been blanketed by the dehumanising events of life.

It's odd that you think the "heart" or conscience can be corrupted, but simultaneously believe they are reliable guides to inform you what you should believe. How did you determine that a corruption of your heart isn't what caused your faith in Jesus or the Bible?

(A Bible verse won't do as an answer here, because I'm interested in your mindset before you believed in the Bible. Or were you taught Bible belief from childhood?)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

He was not of noble birth....

And verse 6 says...."And one will say to him, "What are these wounds between your hands?" And he shall say, "That I was smitten in the house of my friends."

He was "a tiller of the ground" and said he was not a prophet. Obviously this is not talking about Jesus.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The thing is, I'm not sure it would do much good in this conversation, because the alleged evidence (or rather, lack thereof) isn't what convinced you to believe in the first place. I'd rather talk about what actually convinced you, since that's more relevant.



Again, you don't need faith if you have good reason to believe something. Faith only comes into play when we start discussing things for which there isn't good evidence. If people tell you to believe things for which there isn't good evidence, that should raise giant red flags.



It's odd that you think the "heart" or conscience can be corrupted, but simultaneously believe they are reliable guides to inform you what you should believe. How did you determine that a corruption of your heart isn't what caused your faith in Jesus or the Bible?

(A Bible verse won't do as an answer here, because I'm interested in your mindset before you believed in the Bible. Or were you taught Bible belief from childhood?)

I believe that faith is something you build as you discover that Jesus Christ can be trusted.

The brutal truth is that God's goodness, made real to me through his Word, highlighted my sinfulness. It was his goodness that showed up my need for change.

What l have discovered is that Christ has the power to make changes. I believe we simply need to show faith.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that faith is something you build as you discover that Jesus Christ can be trusted.

The brutal truth is that God's goodness, made real to me through his Word, highlighted my sinfulness. It was his goodness that showed up my need for change.

What l have discovered is that Christ has the power to make changes. I believe we simply need to show faith.

You do understand, I hope, that other people have faith in God who do not necessarily believe in Jesus.

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness.

Life.

O earth.
Heavens.

Natural.

Thinker thesis human not naturally motivated by personal human self. Science status.

Self knows in a natural atmosphere as a human and says I am ahead of myself. I am surviving.

In my life future I die. Not discussing future as natural heavens as the same constant state. I die knows a human.

Consciousness the teaching bible.

About why a human theoried.
What the basis theory discussed.
Why sacrificed attacked life was given a summation.

The revealed experience says topic about why life was saved. After the fact. Not before the fact. Baby you still existed living but came close to not living anymore human being.

Facts...maths...factoring...cause effect unknown until it occurs. Cause effect not maths. Reaction equals as outcome known by maths only.

Rational using logic versus minus maths status. Complete want of a reaction. Change by reaction.

Reaction not yet active not apparent to causes.

Sacrifice caused.

Life healthy original to origin heavens as support constant.

Life attacked sacrificed life genesis genetics exited by proof witness. Mutation. Phenomena.

Said evil beast in heaven life dinosaur giants. Previous earth heavens life. Evil status.

Ice newly formed newly gained saved life DNA human from nature's mutation. Life returned as it had been living before a long time ago.

Evidence archaeology. Life returned human DNA saved.

Human teaching. The newborn ice amassing cooling saved us. A newly formed body human owned.

How it was science taught on gods earth O.

Spirit water holy returned reborn end of year twelve cycle. Kept life on earth stable. Iced cooling of.

The saviour statement of how life DNA mutated healed survived was saved returned. As earth history.

Science said so never change that state ever again. Ice. Holy water spirit of life with God.

As you knew. Were advised. Realised.

The saviour of DNA never came afterwards it pre existed. In the teaching statement. Saviour was new. It was reborn. Inference to human baby DNA saved and surviving.

Common sense.
Logic.
Spirituality human world family humans.

History DNA human parents the first humans were the same DNA parents for everyone. Modern science proven.

Status why human DNA returned survived existed saved. Ice statement.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You do understand, I hope, that other people have faith in God who do not necessarily believe in Jesus.

Of course. But do those faiths offer freedom from sin and knowledge of God?

 

[stvdv]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim.

The claim "Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead" is false in my opinion

Why?

Jesus never died, his body died, that's all. Jesus is not the body, nor the mind, nor the emotions

 

[Deeje]

He was "a tiller of the ground" and said he was not a prophet. Obviously this is not talking about Jesus.

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as king, “humble, and riding upon a donkey,” his betrayal for “thirty pieces of silver,” the scattering of his disciples at that time, and his being pierced on the stake by the soldier’s spear were all foretold by Zechariah in exact detail. (Zechariah. 9:9; 11:12; 13:7; 12:10)

And wasn't it normal for Jewish families to grow their own food, so what prevents Jesus from being the one who tilled the soil for his family's food supply? His family was large but not rich.

But its pointless talking to Jews about Jesus and Messianic prophesy....you've been convinced that he's not who he claimed to be, and we are convinced that he was.....so we will just have to wait and see.......

 

[Colt]

This would require belief in ghosts. Ghosts are one more category of the supernatural for which we have zero authenticated instances.
I think that for any thing, including any being, to be real, it must have objective existence ─ that's to say it must exist in the world external to the self, in nature.

And although it's reasonable to assume there are many things about nature of which we're not yet aware (and may never be), I don't see how that can be a license to assert the reality of something for whose reality we have zero credible evidence.

I likewise think it's correct to say that the only way supernatural beings and phenomena are known to exist are as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

Not ghost, celestial bodies of a different substance.

God is the greatest objective reality. In him we live move and have our being.

 

[Valjean]

Here's a question. Do you think our hearts should be aligned with our heads, or our heads with our hearts?

We should use our hearts for social interactions and our heads for serious logistical, scientific and and ontological questions.

 

[viole]

I can't say whether the Christian fish has connections to Jonah's fish or not -- that's a little above my pay grade. But I know that back in the 1970s when it seemed like every Christian was wearing a fish, I was told that IXOYE (FISH) was an anagram in Greek, the letters standing for Jesus Christ God's Son Savior.

You mean an acronym, I suppose.

Anagrams are different. I have a theory, which prima-facie seems to be the only logical explanation, that some write G-d instead of God to avoid those.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Here's a question. Do you think our hearts should be aligned with our heads, or our heads with our hearts?

It depends. If we want to believe in things like Jesus resurrections, or things enjoying the same plausibility, I would suggest the latter.

Ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

Not ghost, celestial bodies of a different substance.

Can you show me the substance?

Or is it only known to exist as something conceptual, a thing imagined?

God is the greatest objective reality. In him we live move and have our being.

What real being do you intend to denote when you say "God"? That is, if we find a real suspect, what objective test will tell us whether it's God or not?

Or is "God" too only conceptual / imaginary?

 

[Colt]

Can you show me the substance?

Or is it only known to exist as something conceptual, a thing imagined?
What real being do you intend to denote when you say "God"? That is, if we find a real suspect, what objective test will tell us whether it's God or not?

Or is "God" too only conceptual / imaginary?

Obviously, if there is a substance that we cant see then I wouldn't be able to show it to you.

God is a subjective experience, it is only there that God is found. Atheist know this and hind behind it by demanding proofs of something that they don't seek to find within their own souls lest they then have to give up their list of objections.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean an acronym, I suppose.

Anagrams are different. I have a theory, which prima-facie seems to be the only logical explanation, that some write G-d instead of God to avoid those.

Ciao

- viole

Whooopsie! Thank you for catching my mental blip.

 

[Left Coast]

I believe that faith is something you build as you discover that Jesus Christ can be trusted.

If you have sufficient evidence that Jesus can be trusted, you don't need faith anymore. I trust that my car will turn on in the morning when I put the key in the ignition and turn it. The reason I believe that is because I have literally thousands of examples of it working, and can readily demonstrate it to anyone who wants to come see. It would be bizarre, I think, to call that "faith." Faith gets invoked when we don't have that kind of robust evidence of something we believe, but we dogmatically believe it anyway.

The brutal truth is that God's goodness, made real to me through his Word, highlighted my sinfulness. It was his goodness that showed up my need for change.

The brutal truth, as I see it, is that you read a book that people told you speaks for God but was written by men. And that book claims there is a perfect being who created you, but who will punish you forever because you are imperfect so you need to be "saved." But you don't have any good reason to believe any of those things are actually true. You believe them on faith because of a feeling of love that came over you while reading the Gospels.

What l have discovered is that Christ has the power to make changes. I believe we simply need to show faith.

Which change has Christ made that you discovered? Please distinguish between what Christ has done and what belief in Christ has done.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as king, “humble, and riding upon a donkey,” his betrayal for “thirty pieces of silver,” the scattering of his disciples at that time, and his being pierced on the stake by the soldier’s spear were all foretold by Zechariah in exact detail. (Zechariah. 9:9; 11:12; 13:7; 12:10)

And wasn't it normal for Jewish families to grow their own food, so what prevents Jesus from being the one who tilled the soil for his family's food supply? His family was large but not rich.

But its pointless talking to Jews about Jesus and Messianic prophesy....you've been convinced that he's not who he claimed to be, and we are convinced that he was.....so we will just have to wait and see.......

Oh come now. You can believe in Jesus and still concede this verse is not about him. Jesus was not a tiller of the ground (he was a carpenter) and Jesus is supposed to be a prophet according to you. The man in the verse is a tiller of the ground and not a prophet.

 

[Psalm23]

If the Bible is accurate, Jesus knew what was going to happen and could theoretically have fled rather than accept the suffering.

Jesus chose the cross instead.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course. But do those faiths offer freedom from sin and knowledge of God?

Of course.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It depends. If we want to believe in things like Jesus resurrections, or things enjoying the same plausibility, I would suggest the latter.

Ciao

- viole

Justice appeals to reason, but mercy does not.

Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself to save others. He did so in obedience to his Father's will, because his Father so loved the world. The acceptability of Jesus' sacrifice led to the resurrection, and, ultimately the offer of life to those who turn in faith. Such mercy to the sinner defies logic and is like burning coals on the conscience of the unworthy.