Jesus Resurrection

[sealchan]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

And he was only around for a little while at that...I think those that believe should be satisfied with their faith and not concern themselves with proof...or even a literal resurrection. The stars are for signs...

 

[sealchan]

Why would the apostles (e.g. witnesses of the resurrection ) die for there claims to it then?

Because of the principles of what Jesus taught and its value for humanity. Others died for as much without the need for a resurrection to "firm it up". It's not the resurrection, but the truth that sets us free. The truth that we prove in our own experience not the promise waited for for two millennia.

 

[lukethethird]

Oh wait a minute. Its fine to ask questions. Im also asking questions. Ones like, why would these appostles die for a so called known lie and no one has given any good answers yet to that.

We would have to read our Bible literally to come up with a question like that, so like I was saying...

 

[Jollybear]

We would have to read our Bible literally to come up with a question like that, so like I was saying...

The context of Jesus resurrection was literal. But, even if it was not literal, still, they witnessed it and hence the question i have, DIE FOR A KNOWN LIE, REALLY?

Jesus himself said in one of his resurrected appearences "touch me and see, a GHOST does not have flesh and bones as you see i have"

Sounds like he was correcting a ghost like interpretation. A non literal resurrection.

 

[Prometheus85]

You asked for evidence that the apostles died for there claims to the resurrection, i give you that evidence that someone else had the time to pile together, then you blatently dismiss it.

Me giving you this article in no way means ive never looked at the evidence myself. I have, alot of it. But to compile it all would take alot of work (e.g. time, time i have limit on). But others have piled it together, whats wrong with me using them as a source? Nothing at all.

However, there IS something wrong with you dismissing it without refutting it after its presented.

That article doesn’t support your claim nor does it counter mine. So, to show that the claims of the Bible are historically accurate you simply give me an article quoting the Bible? How is this not the definition of a circular argument? Also in that article the author says like you the apostles are not liars and believe Jesus rose form the grave. But unlike you the author says that doesn’t prove the resurrection is happened? Why would the author say that if the apostles were not liars? Maybe it’s because besides the Bible , we have scant evidence—even if the apostles were executed or murdered—that these were martyrdoms.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Your preaching to the quire but it's even better than you suggest.

Among a consensus of those best trained to know (NT historians, regardless of faith) agree that these five historical events are historically reliable.

1. Jesus appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms.
3. He died by crucifixion.
4. His tomb was found empty.
5. That even his enemies claimed to have seen him post mortem.

Those are among the most reliable facts in the NT according to those best trained to know. If that is all we knew (instead of the wealth of knowledge we actually have) that would still be plenty to draw faith in the core tenants of Christian faith.

Hello. Sorry, yes, I was replying to your earlier post in a supporting way.

Another thing I find interesting is how fast the message spread (indeed that it spread at all if Jesus was just another person making the claims he did - there were many). There was unquestionably something special in this case!

 

[exchemist]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

Durh! That is why it is a matter of faith. If it had been proved, everyone would be Christian, obviously.

 

[leroy]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

There is an Empty tomb and there are post mortem appearances testified multiple people that we clearly not lying.

 

[Woberts]

There is an Empty tomb and there are post mortem appearances testified multiple people that we clearly not lying.

An empty tomb isn't valid evidence. And as for people clearly not lying, you can't really know that, now can you?

 

[leroy]

An empty tomb isn't valid evidence. And as for people clearly not lying, you can't really know that, now can you?

Because they where willing suffer and die in the name of the resurrection . Nobody would die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented.

It is a fact that people like peter, James, Paul etc honestly and sincerely belived in the resurrection.

The empty tomb represents a correct prediction, if Jesus would have been raised we would expect to find an empty tomb.

There is no viable naturalistic explanation for the data, whatever happened 2000 years ago was something extraordinary (ether a miracle or something natural) but something extraordinary did happened

 

[Woberts]

Nobody would die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented.

Again, you can't know this.
Try providing some actual evidence.

 

[leroy]

That article doesn’t support your claim nor does it counter mine. So, to show that the claims of the Bible are historically accurate you simply give me an article quoting the Bible? How is this not the definition of a circular argument? Also in that article the author says like you the apostles are not liars and believe Jesus rose form the grave. But unlike you the author says that doesn’t prove the resurrection is happened? Why would the author say that if the apostles were not liars? Maybe it’s because besides the Bible , we have scant evidence—even if the apostles were executed or murdered—that these were martyrdoms.

Just treat the Bible in the same way you would treat any other historical document.

The new testament is a series of independent documents written by different people.

The resurrection was atested in 4 gospels acts and in Paul's letters we have multiple indepebdind sources that testify in favor of the resurrection.

You may or may not conciser this sufficient evidence, but your "using the Bible to prove the Bible" argument is flawed

 

[leroy]

Again, you can't know this.
Try providing some actual evidence.

We have multiple independent sources that show these people died as martirs

 

[Dosgatos]

Ah the old die for a lie argument lol very common amongst Christian apologist For many Christians, this is the anchor of the argument for a resurrection.
While people have died for lies—the 9/11 hijackers, for example, or the Heavens gate cult—they didn’t know it was a lie. Jonestown the list goes on. There are many problems with this argument but 1st Do we have good evidence that Paul or Any of the original 12 apostles dies for their belief in the risen Jesus? Nope.

 

[Dosgatos]

So your argument assumes that Christ Jesus did exist, was crucified, had witnesses of him walking around afterwards but it was a lie.

Without using the bible as a source, the existence of a man named Jesus (called the Christ and king of the jews) was crucified by Pontius Pilate a little over 2000 years ago. Just using contemporary historians who were not Christian, Jesus is mentioned more often Caesar. He is thus the most mentioned person in the Quran by reference; 25 times by the name Isa, third-person 48 times, first-person 35 times, and the rest as titles and attributes. Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the whole. Of the Quran.

 

[lukethethird]

The context of Jesus resurrection was literal. But, even if it was not literal, still, they witnessed it and hence the question i have, DIE FOR A KNOWN LIE, REALLY?

Jesus himself said in one of his resurrected appearences "touch me and see, a GHOST does not have flesh and bones as you see i have"

Sounds like he was correcting a ghost like interpretation. A non literal resurrection.

I do not assume that anything I read in The Bible actually happened, but you do, so we are just talking past each other. We could read a history book, rather than our Bible, if we want to know what might have happened in the past, and even then we still have to critically assess the information.

 

[Riders]

This is what I said. Why are you quoting it back to me so it looks like something your saying.

BTW you really need to read some Dan brown or N.T. Wright and get away from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant for an in-depth study of anything.



1. It is true that in general the bulk of the NT books were all written before 70AD (a remarkably early date for works of this period). However there are certain phrases and formulas that can be traced back to sources within just a few years of Christ's death.
2. If you going to throw out claims about biblical contradictions your going to have to point some of them out to discuss. If not your just making vacuous complaints without a context.


I assume you meant Christian bible, not bile. There was only one original Christian bible but it has been translated into many subsidiary version but we have everything we need to see where they differ in any way at all. In fact most of them footnote the reasons between their minor differences. There is even software now that can search through dozens of bible version sand find every variant between them. This is really not an issue.

I told you. You can search every single difference between bible versions and easily establish what the original most likely said and there really aren't that many differences. Most bible's have consistent doctrines it's the interpretations that vary somewhat between denominations and that isn't the bible's fault.


That is complete garbage. Get the two bible's you mention open them up and compare them. Outside of period language use I bet you will find well over 95% textual agreement between them and you will find footnotes describing the reasons behind most of the differences.

I get the distinct feeling your not really an expert in the field your trying to hold da discussion in. Also when your throwing out accusation after accusation I can't spend enough time on any one specifically in order to do it justice. Why don't you pick you "best" accusation and we can discuss it in depth to see if your accusation can withstand scrutiny?

Sorry about the spelling mistakes. I am trying to clear that up. There is no proof for what your claiming, you are just making claims without any back up proof.

There is no proof Jesus lived. Where are the writings about Jesus written back then that are proven to be real writings written back then in that time about Jesus outside of Josephus?

There is proof that your bible is wrong, the earliest KJ Bible has nothing in common with yours.

But the best proof for this is the church itself. My sister belongs to a Messianic
Jewish Christian church and even they say Jesus is not his name.

It is Jehovah or Iesus.

 

[Riders]

So your argument assumes that Christ Jesus did exist, was crucified, had witnesses of him walking around afterwards but it was a lie.

Without using the bible as a source, the existence of a man named Jesus (called the Christ and king of the jews) was crucified by Pontius Pilate a little over 2000 years ago. Just using contemporary historians who were not Christian, Jesus is mentioned more often Caesar. He is thus the most mentioned person in the Quran by reference; 25 times by the name Isa, third-person 48 times, first-person 35 times, and the rest as titles and attributes. Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the whole. Of the Quran.

Muslim faith is broken off of Jewish which is a part of Christian history. Using the Quran is like using the Bible. But if you go by the Quran it is a different Jesus,Jesus is not God in the Quran. Are you Muslim? You do not believe Jesus as God then? That is not the same Jesus.

 

[Riders]

So your argument assumes that Christ Jesus did exist, was crucified, had witnesses of him walking around afterwards but it was a lie.

Without using the bible as a source, the existence of a man named Jesus (called the Christ and king of the jews) was crucified by Pontius Pilate a little over 2000 years ago. Just using contemporary historians who were not Christian, Jesus is mentioned more often Caesar. He is thus the most mentioned person in the Quran by reference; 25 times by the name Isa, third-person 48 times, first-person 35 times, and the rest as titles and attributes. Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the whole. Of the Quran.

The Quran is a bible name any historic proof of writings not by a bible.

 

[David T]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

Relying on christianity to understand its own text to make counter points to the churches confusion is an idiots confusion arguing with an idiot "expert" .

Since you insist the church is authoritative to its text, i would have to disagree with that fantasy you seem to have.