• 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?

Brian2

Veteran Member
The stories contain characters who serve as witnesses, but we have only the stories ─ not a single witness left an account.

See my post #1097 above, and a more detailed account >here< and not least >here<.

So you don't believe John was a witness to the empty tomb and spoke to the risen Jesus, not Matthew, and you don't believe Luke got his stories from witnesses and those who were there from the start.
That's OK, that is typical belief by people who don't believe the gospels.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Because magic book.


Or perhaps, because of personal experience of that presence. The light of God dwells not in books, but in the living soul. The scriptures of all religions may point the way to God, as poetry may point the way to insight, but the poster you quoted talked of the personal relationship that is possible between man and his creator. The 'magic books', by implication, are secondary to the lived experience.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So you don't believe John was a witness to the empty tomb
We don't even know who wrote the gospel called John.
and you don't believe Luke got his stories from witnesses
No, and we don't even know who wrote the gospel called Luke either.
and those who were there from the start.
No one who was there from the start, whatever the start was, has left us even one written account of it. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, no contemporary accounts of Jesus, and until Jesus' followers brought Roman politics into it, no independent mentions of Jesus anywhere.
That's OK, that is typical belief by people who don't believe the gospels.
It's also typical of people with some familiarity with history. Putting the past together will never be an exact process, but it's still a branch of reasoned enquiry with developed concepts of best practice.

Why would any reasonable person accept as historically accurate a tale about someone who was said to have been literally dead, the cessation of his life support processes having become in fact irreversible, who then comes back to life regardless AND literally flies off into the sky unaided? On the scale of silliness, it's right off the far end, no?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member

The Resurrection is it provable?


"A woman who was pronounced dead woke up and knocked on her coffin during her wake.

Bella Montoya, 76, was rushed back to the hospital following the incident in Ecuador on Friday and put into an intensive care unit where she remained on Monday, The Associated Press reported.

Montoya had been admitted to hospital earlier in the day on Friday with a potential stroke and cardiac arrest. She did not respond to resuscitation and so a doctor pronounced her dead.

The family then took her to a funeral home where they held a wake for her."
Isn't Jesus' case of "resurrection" from the dead, like it, please, right?

Regards
_______________

Being declared dead when you're still alive

A woman in Ecuador was mistakenly declared dead. ...

Why waking up in a morgue isn't quite as unusual as you'd ...

 

Colt

Well-Known Member

The Resurrection is it provable?


"A woman who was pronounced dead woke up and knocked on her coffin during her wake.

Bella Montoya, 76, was rushed back to the hospital following the incident in Ecuador on Friday and put into an intensive care unit where she remained on Monday, The Associated Press reported.

Montoya had been admitted to hospital earlier in the day on Friday with a potential stroke and cardiac arrest. She did not respond to resuscitation and so a doctor pronounced her dead.

The family then took her to a funeral home where they held a wake for her."
Isn't Jesus' case of "resurrection" from the dead, like it, please, right?

Regards
_______________

Being declared dead when you're still alive

A woman in Ecuador was mistakenly declared dead. ...

Why waking up in a morgue isn't quite as unusual as you'd ...

No, only the body of Jesus died, the Son of God is an eternal celestial being whose coming had been foreseen by seers and prophets for ages!

The apostles of Jesus found it difficult to believe until they saw him in a new form. I can appreciate that such a no understandable event is hard to believe, I’m so grateful that I do!
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Definitely not because there is no such thing as bodily resurrection. That the Cause of Christ was resurrected after He died and spread around the world is the real resurrection not the fallacious superstitious one Christians have concocted from their misunderstanding of the Bible.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Definitely not because there is no such thing as bodily resurrection. That the Cause of Christ was resurrected after He died and spread around the world is the real resurrection not the fallacious superstitious one Christians have concocted from their misunderstanding of the Bible.
Agreed that this doesn't happen. Once a body begins decomposing, it cannot be made to live again. The best one can do is reuse the ingredients and build a new life from the organic constituents from the ground up beginning with a zygote in the case of life that reproduces sexually or a living bacterium capable of metabolism, growth, and division.

When you choose to interpret scripture based in naturalism, which precludes literal corporeal resurrection, you are accepting that empiricism (science) is the gold standard for belief - that when scripture contradicts that science, it needs to be reinterpreted to make it conform to scientific knowledge.

I've done that as well but took it further than you. I've rejected all miraculous and supernatural accounts.

PS - Christians don't like to be called superstitious.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member

The Resurrection is it provable?


"A woman who was pronounced dead woke up and knocked on her coffin during her wake.

Bella Montoya, 76, was rushed back to the hospital following the incident in Ecuador on Friday and put into an intensive care unit where she remained on Monday, The Associated Press reported.

Montoya had been admitted to hospital earlier in the day on Friday with a potential stroke and cardiac arrest. She did not respond to resuscitation and so a doctor pronounced her dead.

The family then took her to a funeral home where they held a wake for her."
Isn't Jesus' case of "resurrection" from the dead, like it, please, right?

Regards
_______________

"An 82-year-old woman who was recently pronounced dead at a New York nursing home was later discovered to be alive by funeral home staff. This follows a similar incident in Iowa where a 66-year-old woman with early-onset dementia was declared dead by a nurse, only to be found gasping for air when funeral home staff unzipped the body bag.

Fortunately, these events are very rare. But fear of them is visceral, which might explain an old naval custom. When sewing the canvas shroud for a dead sailor, the sailmaker would take the last stitch through the nose of the deceased. Having a sailcloth needle through the nose was presumed to be a potent enough stimulus to wake any sailor who was actually still alive."
One must note that not even a physician checked and certified that " Jesus" had physically died, please, right?

Regards
 

Eddi

Panentheist and Psychedelic Cat
Premium Member
Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?
None that satisfies me regarding him being God and resurrected

But perhaps for him being just a man who got crucified

So no and maybe
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Agreed that this doesn't happen. Once a body begins decomposing, it cannot be made to live again. The best one can do is reuse the ingredients and build a new life from the organic constituents from the ground up beginning with a zygote in the case of life that reproduces sexually or a living bacterium capable of metabolism, growth, and division.

When you choose to interpret scripture based in naturalism, which precludes literal corporeal resurrection, you are accepting that empiricism (science) is the gold standard for belief - that when scripture contradicts that science, it needs to be reinterpreted to make it conform to scientific knowledge.

I've done that as well but took it further than you. I've rejected all miraculous and supernatural accounts.

PS - Christians don't like to be called superstitious.
Yes if it basically doesn’t agree with science then there is another meaning intended. The true miracle of Christ is that He changed hearts. Taking Christ’s teachings into one’s heart and trying to live by them is very different from the superstition of ingesting bread and wine considered to have been turned into Christ’s body which is too nonsensical to accept but the human heart unfortunately can be manipulated to believe anything the mind does not question. We must question everything especially what others tell us. We need to see with our own eyes and think with our own mind not blindly follow others.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Definitely not because there is no such thing as bodily resurrection. That the Cause of Christ was resurrected after He died and spread around the world is the real resurrection not the fallacious superstitious one Christians have concocted from their misunderstanding of the Bible.

Yes if it basically doesn’t agree with science then there is another meaning intended.
I think that the writers of the gospels meant exactly what they said. They saw Jesus. They spoke with him. And they touched him. Now if that didn't happen, what's wrong with calling it a hoax and calling the writers liars? And what science did they have then that they could turn to and without a doubt say that resurrection was impossible?

The "cause" of Christ was not "resurrected" after he died. His disciples all abandoned the "cause". And the cause that was being preached was that Jesus had conquered death and had been resurrected from the dead. One of the gospels says that Jesus had a flesh and bone body. That is the claim. And the gospels claim there were many witnesses that can attest to their claims.

Not true? I certainly have my doubts. But really... his "cause" was resurrected? Maybe Constantine "resurrected" his cause. Maybe Martin Luther "resurrected" his cause. But both of those included a belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.

So, if you want to blame someone for concocting the resurrection, blame the gospels writers. It's only a Baha'i belief that the followers of Jesus misunderstood the "symbolic" resurrection story and took it literally. I don't believe the resurrection was misunderstood. I believe it was written to get people to believe that he had risen from the dead and that Jesus was a God/man and the only way to gain salvation from the penalty of their sins. Again, not true? Sure, I can believe that... nothing but made-up myths.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I think that the writers of the gospels meant exactly what they said. They saw Jesus. They spoke with him. And they touched him.
Not true. The gospels were not written by eye witnesses. They are teh collected legends about Jesus that various writers spliced together decades after Jesus' death. Each gospel actually has more than one author, too.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes if it basically doesn’t agree with science then there is another meaning intended.
That's not what I said, but it's close. I'd say that if it doesn't agree with the science, then it is wrong. You seem to be starting from the position that words are all correct and one must find a way to understand them to make them correct. I'm starting from the position that the words are the words of ordinary men freely speculating about what has happened in the past to account for what they find in the present, but like all other mythologists, missed the mark by a lot. That's why I can call those discrepancies errors, and you write things like "there is another meaning intended." Concluding error simply isn't a possibility with the faith-based thinker. Look at this comment:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2+2=5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

"2+2=5" is an error, and he would likely agree if he were looking at anything other than his Bible, but if he reads it there, it is no longer an error to him. He just needs to find a way to make it right. That's called motivated thinking and confirmation bias.
We need to see with our own eyes and think with our own mind not blindly follow others.
Agreed.

You just praised Jesus, his advice, and the example of his life, as if they were exemplary ("taking Christ’s teachings into one’s heart and trying to live by them"). I see otherwise, and I see it plainly. I have a set of values and beliefs that vary from that example in multiple places. Obviously, I don't defer to Jesus' contradictory words and deeds. That's thinking for myself and not blindly following others.

Likewise with Baha'u'llah. I see people telling me that his words and life were evidence that he was channeling a god, but I see the ordinary words of an ordinary man.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Not true. The gospels were not written by eye witnesses. They are teh collected legends about Jesus that various writers spliced together decades after Jesus' death. Each gospel actually has more than one author, too.
" Jesus' death "
Jesus was near-dead which could be described poetically or proverbially "dead", right?

Regards
 

paarsurrey

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

You're no doubt aware of the principle that extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinarily good demonstration.
The evidence for the resurrection is of extremely low quality instead.
There is no eyewitness account.
There is no contemporary account.
There is no independent account.
It first gets a recorded mention in Paul, who like all the other NT authors never met an historical Jesus, but no relevant details except that Jesus 'appeared' to a crowd. There is no suggestion that Paul was one of that crowd, and no one else mentions such a thing.
Instead the earliest account with any detail to it (Mark) is written by a non-eyewitness non-independent author a highly non-contemporary 45 years or so after the purported event.
And is followed by three more accounts, in Matthew, Luke and John. And a sixth (undetailed) account right at the beginning of Acts.
What all six accounts have in common is that each of them contradicts the other five in significant ways.
You can very very safely and confidently proceed on the basis that this impossible-by-definition event didn't happen in history, only in story.

Well said above and earlier >here< and >here<.
I have to add that if Jesus had "resurrected/risen" from the clinically dead then he need not have been to
  1. move secretly from the eyes of the public, please.
2. Specially from the Judaism people, he was afraid lest he is caught again, right?

Regards
___________________

These are some of the problems with the resurrection as an historical event ─

The story is truly, madly, deeply not believable, just on the face of it. There is no way that a person whose body's life support functions have irreversibly ceased ─ which is what death is ─ can come back to life. If they can they never satisfied the definition of death.

The story is a common one in ancient times, the sort of thing all sorts of people in all sorts of stories did because it was expected. Just in the bible alone ─
* Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body.)
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 4:32+)
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).
(And excepting Tabitha alone, notice how nobody raises dead women. Even Orpheus couldn't do it.)

I pointed out that if Jesus "came back to life", out here in reality that must mean he was never dead; and that extraordinary claims require evidence of extraordinary quality, whereas the evidence for the resurrection is of extremely poor quality ─ a routine kind of miracle to attribute to a religious hero in that culture, no eyewitness account, no contemporary account within 20 years and none with any details within 45 years, no independent account.

Then we have Paul's mention, the four descriptions in the gospels, and the mention in Acts 1 ─ as I said, none by an eyewitness, none contemporary, none independent AND each of the 6 contradicting the other 5 in major ways.
Here are some of the contradictions I'm talking about. (I posted it once before but neglected to note the page.)
As I said earlier, you couldn't renew a dog license on evidence of that quality,
1. Who went to the tomb?
Paul: –
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome
Matthew: MM, MmJ
Luke: MM, MmJ, Joanna
John: MM
2. What did they see?
Paul: –
Mark: Open tomb
Matthew: An earthquake. An angel descending who rolled away the stone and sat on it.
He looked like lightning, his raiment white as snow
Luke: Open tomb
John: Open tomb
3. Were any guards there?
Paul: -
Mark: No.
Matthew: The guards trembled.
Luke: No
John: No
4. What did they do?
Paul: -
Mark: Went in.
Matthew: -
Luke: Went in
John: Ran to fetch Peter and the Beloved Disciple who ran to the tomb and saw the linen
5. Did they see anyone in or at the tomb?
Paul: -
Mark: Saw one young man in a white robe. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee
Matthew: Addressed by an angel. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke: Saw two men in dazzling apparel. Told Jesus was risen.
John: No.
6. What did they do next?
Paul: -
Mark: They fled in fear.
Matthew: They left.
Luke: They went and told the eleven but weren’t believed.
John: Peter and the Beloved Disciple went home.
7. To whom did Jesus first appear?
Paul: Peter
Mark: MM
Matthew: MM and MmJ
Luke: ‘Cleopas’ (= Cephas/Peter?) and Simon
John: MM
8. How?
Paul: -
Mark: As MM fled.
Matthew: As MM and MmJ were going home. He told them he’d meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke: As Cleopas and Simon walked to Emmaus. They didn’t recognize him. That night at dinner he broke the bread and they realized who he was.
John: At the tomb. MM mistook him for the gardener. Then she recognized him. He said, ‘Inform my brethren’.
9. What did the guards do?
Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: Told the chief priests. Were paid to say, Disciples stole the body.
Luke: -
John: -
10. What did the others do?
Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: The eleven went to Galilee.
Luke: Went to Jerusalem, told the disciples &c.
John: MM told the disciples.
11. To whom did Jesus second appear?
Paul: The twelve [sic].
Mark: ‘two of them’.
Matthew: The eleven.
Luke: The eleven and others.
John: The disciples and others
12. Where?
Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: At Galilee
Luke: While MM, MmJ and Joanna were reporting to the eleven.
John: At table, with doors shut
13. With what result?
Paul: -
Mark: The two told the others but weren’t believed.
Matthew: They worshiped him but some doubted. He told them to preach to all nations.
Luke: They thought he was a ghost. He reassured them. He led them to Bethany. He was carried up to heaven.
John: They were glad. He gave them the Holy Spirit and power to forgive.
14. To whom did Jesus third appear?
Paul: The five hundred.
Mark: The eleven at table. He upbraided them for their disbelief. He told them signs - demons, tongues, serpents, poisons. He went up to heaven.
Matthew: *
Luke: *
John: At the same house as before, with the doors locked. He reassured Thomas.
15. To whom did Jesus fourth appear?
Paul: James
Mark: *
Matthew: *
Luke: *
John: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the BD and another disciple. They didn’t recognize him at first. They caught lots of fish. They recognized him at breakfast. They argued over the Beloved Disciple waiting till Jesus returned.
16. To whom did Jesus fifth appear?
Paul: All the apostles.
17. Where did Jesus ascend to heaven?
Galilee (Mark 16:7, 16:19; Matt 28:16)
Bethany / Jerusalem Luke 24:50, John, unclear, Acts 1:4+1:9
 
Top