• 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!

The Resurrection is it provable?


"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

Rome had some horrific methods of execution reserved for different crimes
So crucifixion waa easy the easy bit,

Any slave who broke roman law or any traitor to rome, (terrorism, anarchist etc) was crucified.

If he existed (no hard evidence) then he could have been crucified if he were a slave (doubtful) or a traitor to rome (probable)

Resurrection, nope, although it is remotely possible for someone to be bought from the guards after (apparent) death and let down from the cross.

If this person recovered from their wounds sufficiently they could have been seen out and about. They would in all probability die of blood poisoning from the iron nails used in the crucifixion.

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If you ask is human life witnessed today as unnaturally sacrificed.

Yes is the answer. A huge amount of blood cell bone health witnessed sacrificed.

The teaching is exact.

Humans living inside earths holy protection should not be sacrificed but healthy. The truth.

First highest natural form is health.

Then you ask is stigmata witnessed today?


Another direct proof.

So you ask did the human legal system use and own cruel punishments?


Was that legal system legal?


Legal was after the church building was established as bible law testimonial. Temple of science not allowed to be rebuilt.


So you review two variables.

Natural human life sacrificed. Stated crucified by burn crucible. Spirit gas fallout terms.

To human law punishments.

So you look at history. Was just one human demonstrating petitioning Rome to stop technology temple?

No it was a human Jewish new movement based on old slave temple science attack. New terms. Jewish... Christians.

Who Rome slaughtered for their medical human challenge. As stated illegal behaviour.

Why building the church atop the science temple men confessed they were hypocrites. About human health. But the oath was medical and established.

Only after Rome was burnt hit by falling star gain many times. Came the decision.

In my own brain burning prickling attack. Only once did I unnaturally bleed when I saw a Silver ball. From my womb. It was an instant reaction.

I did see whipping black ground emergence that felt like it was cutting me. My legs just swelled. My eyesight instantly changed. My bones ached.

I saw old men's severed heads appear in images wearing hats caps of their era. I saw lots of human status images. Strange images. Alien images. Michael Jackson and Elvis images.

After seeing wisping burning brown or black smoke. As I was sitting inside.

So Instantly the advice by witness showed me earths transmitters communication had burnt fell. Obviously their images had owned a constant heavenly transmitter.

Real reasons to say yes humans were sacrificed as and by the phenomena body witnessed in public. To have the public's support as a community.

The theme a cross.

+ Four O earth seasons.
+ Addition that uses minus of God mass.
+ Wooden cross for human punishment.
+ Positive oxygen mass removed as wood tree burning bush...a science statement.

As it was a testimonial about natural life and natural earth versus not natural human technology.

Hence it was never just science the old new testimonial.


Veteran Member
Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

There is historic evidence if you accept the gospel writers as being who the evidence shows them to be. (Matthew and John, apostles. Luke, the companion of Paul and who got his gospel information from witnesses and others who had been there from the beginning. Mark, a companion of Peter)
Paul is accepted as having been a real person who lived close to the time of Jesus and when Jesus was alive. He knew Jesus lived (so there should be no question on that issue) and he knew Jesus was crucified (there should be no question on that issue). He did not believe the story of the resurrection that the apostles were spreading around but he says he had his own experience of the risen Jesus and so was a witness to the resurrection that way.
And yes, the resurrection story is considered to have been there from the beginning of the spreading of the gospel by the apostles.
As a historical happening it seems that independent witness is first needed before something is accepted historically, and for something like a resurrection many people it seems would want a lot of independent witness. Paul of course is an independent witness who became a Christian because of that witness. This is the same with all independent witnesses. If they witnessed the resurrected Jesus and knew He had died they would become Christians and so automatically disqualify themselves from being a witness because they would be believers than and so not trustworthy.
And of course if they claimed to be witnesses and were not Christians then their witness would be questioned and it would be asked why they did not believe if they had really seen the risen Lord.
Scientifically there is a presumption that all things can be answered naturalistically.
So there is no acceptance in scientific thinking just as there is no acceptance of the witness reports in sceptical thinking.


Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
2000 years after the fact finding proof

Just my common sense advice:
"don't hold your breath"

I actually think this is a pretty good point.
Whilst not directly comparing the two, I think most layfolk would be surprised at the evidence...or lack thereof...for many historical figures.

King Arthur possibly wouldn't shock them, treading the line between myth and reality as he does. Ragnar Lothbrok much the same. But examine the evidence around figures like Shakespeare gets pretty interesting too.

We just don't have the same levels of consistent, controlled, and systematic records from yesteryear as we do in many parts of the world today.


se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Best arguments for the resurrection I've seen come from Bill Craig, David Wood etc.


Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?
I would say, "yes" if but by logic and deduction (by witnesses) and historic.

We have witnesses of crucifixion and witnesses of resurrection.

Scientific would only be "the dead body isn't in the tomb and the soldiers were there to stop anyone from stealing it".


Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The existence of crucifixion at that culture and time is well-established.

The existence of a historical Jesus is not. In recent years it has become increasingly challenged, IMO with very good reason.

Even the Gospel of Matthew, in an interesting apparent lapse into commentary about the present, as much as says outright that there will never be any real evidence for Jesus' ressurrection - or at least that there was none until the time of his writing (Matthew 28:11-15).