• 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!

Why I CANNOT Believe in The Resurrection

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Did Jesus die on the cross for our sins, then rise again from the dead, to show us all that death has no power? I can’t completely abandon the idea. Even though it does sound absurd.
If Jesus rose in a physical body, what He would have been showing us would be false, because physical bodies do not come back to life after three days; but if Jesus rose in a spiritual body to show us we could also rise that way that would make some kind of sense, since that is what will happen after we die. But Christians would have us believe that Jesus rose in a physical body because that is more spectacular,so they can say their religion is superior to all other religions. Frankly, I find that offensive.
 
First.. the bible isn't composed of one source.. the new testament is a collection of the documented evidence available to the community forming it at the time.. If one takes all the historical accounts from those who witness and put them in one book called the bible.. then obviously you won't find any elsewhere.. the thing is.. people who really witnessed it.. became Christian, and the best of their documented accounts became the new testament..

it's like if someone had plenty of evidence that Joebob committed the murder.. and the defense says: isn't there any evidence outside of what the prosecution has? I can't trust it if they are the only source.. but the prosecution isn't the source.. it's just organizing the sources.. the evidence was collected from multiple sources and compiled in one place for convenience..

So the entire concept of there being a lack of evidence outside the bible is just MORONIC .. only someone that doesn't think things through and investigate would draw such a brain-dead conclusion that there is a lack of sources just because we put all the best ones together in a book.

So yes.. it's hard to find evidence outside of the main stack of collection of evidence.. yeah. know.. cause that's where mankind makes an effort to keep it.. all together in one book called the bible.. why is it surprising that most the evidence is where we actually try to keep it??
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
First.. the bible isn't composed of one source.. the new testament is a collection of the documented evidence available to the community forming it at the time.. If one takes all the historical accounts from those who witness and put them in one book called the bible.. then obviously you won't find any elsewhere.. the thing is.. people who really witnessed it.. became Christian, and the best of their documented accounts became the new testament..

it's like if someone had plenty of evidence that Joebob committed the murder.. and the defense says: isn't there any evidence outside of what the prosecution has? I can't trust it if they are the only source.. but the prosecution isn't the source.. it's just organizing the sources.. the evidence was collected from multiple sources and compiled in one place for convenience..

So the entire concept of there being a lack of evidence outside the bible is just MORONIC .. only someone that doesn't think things through and investigate would draw such a brain-dead conclusion that there is a lack of sources just because we put all the best ones together in a book.

So yes.. it's hard to find evidence outside of the main stack of collection of evidence.. yeah. know.. cause that's where mankind makes an effort to keep it.. all together in one book called the bible.. why is it surprising that most the evidence is where we actually try to keep it??
And by that "standard" of evidence lies a huge problem. By that standard all religions, including Christianity have sufficient evidence for their beliefs, or, and this is what really appears to be the case, there is not sufficient evidence to believe in any religion.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
First.. the bible isn't composed of one source.. the new testament is a collection of the documented evidence available to the community forming it at the time.. If one takes all the historical accounts from those who witness and put them in one book called the bible.. then obviously you won't find any elsewhere.. the thing is.. people who really witnessed it.. became Christian, and the best of their documented accounts became the new testament..

it's like if someone had plenty of evidence that Joebob committed the murder.. and the defense says: isn't there any evidence outside of what the prosecution has? I can't trust it if they are the only source.. but the prosecution isn't the source.. it's just organizing the sources.. the evidence was collected from multiple sources and compiled in one place for convenience..

So the entire concept of there being a lack of evidence outside the bible is just MORONIC .. only someone that doesn't think things through and investigate would draw such a brain-dead conclusion that there is a lack of sources just because we put all the best ones together in a book.

So yes.. it's hard to find evidence outside of the main stack of collection of evidence.. yeah. know.. cause that's where mankind makes an effort to keep it.. all together in one book called the bible.. why is it surprising that most the evidence is where we actually try to keep it??

The New Testament is not recognized as "evidence" You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple principle, Jackson. This is why scholars look for what is called "extra-Biblical" evidence to try to prove what the Bible claims. And they're having no luck finding anything that proves there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. To Jesus, for that matter. While there's no one specific piece of writing that proves Jesus existed, scholars generally accept that someone--anyone--had to be the template for the character found in the gospels. Are you aware, Jackson that there isn't a single piece of writing including the Bible that tells us how the apostles died? It's all conjecture based on traditions.
 
And by that "standard" of evidence lies a huge problem. By that standard all religions, including Christianity have sufficient evidence for their beliefs, or, and this is what really appears to be the case, there is not sufficient evidence to believe in any religion.
But that's just not the case.. The scriptures of the bible are pulled from sources spanning many generations, all working together to create one big complete image.. and if you remove the new testament.. it's missing what the old testament predicts.. The key to seeing the big picture is found in viewing it all through the lens of the teaching Jesus provides in the Gospel.. legitimating the Gospel accounts.. which have multiple sources themself. - then we have the remaining church leadership that Jesus left behind and the accounts of them setting up the church.. and the church histories all come back to that same point that they claim to come from..
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
the thing is.. people who really witnessed it.. became Christian, and the best of their documented accounts became the new testament..
So yes.. it's hard to find evidence outside of the main stack of collection of evidence.. yeah. know.. cause that's where mankind makes an effort to keep it.. all together in one book called the bible.. why is it surprising that most the evidence is where we actually try to keep it??
But the point is, how do we know that they witnessed it, just because it is written in a book?
Anyone can write a book saying that they witnessed someone rise from the dead, but the book is not evidence that anyone ever rose from the dead, so even if we had other sources besides the Bible the same problem would exist. A miracle is only evidence to those who witnessed it first hand, and that is why it is utterly worthless as evidence for anyone else, except people who want so badly to believe that they will believe anything they read in a book.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
O God O one earth.

All sciences human theories.
All science products taken from earth.

Said earth is my science God.

Said God the earth owned in a man theorising status. For his sciences.

A scientist says originally earth owning a volcano ejected gases that cooled in space. Heavens gases.

A human not a scientist explains the same story to non scientists. Said teaching children of no knowledge science. O planet was like your man father.

It's O body erected like a man penis a mountain. Volcano. That spurted like sperm does and seeded immaculately in its womb. Being space. The heavens baby or son. Falsely claimed.

Only real father a human man with a penis to be named man men male or a father. The adult man father self body human a theist.

Is that human history too difficult to accept? You have to be a human. Alive as a human. To think as a human. To tell stories as a human. To own human group teaching to believe in what a human teaches.

O God the earth owned it's heavens.

Versus men human claiming O earth was a man with a son as a planet.

Real men real penis owners.

False men story God earth and it's heavens. False sex story.

Not owned by anything except a planet. It's heavens spirit.

Now if you got life attacked what would you have to falsely preach against ?

Men in science claiming earth for science and not for life support.

Never was it taught that God created life. As the planets naturally owned presence.

It was taught man sinned himself against God presence being science reactions and was life harmed

Teaching then said human life owned rights of God's presence and not science.

A Very different reason to teach God.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
But the point is, how do we know that they witnessed it, just because it is written in a book?
Anyone can write a book saying that they witnessed someone rise from the dead, but the book is not evidence that anyone ever rose from the dead, so even if we had other sources besides the Bible the same problem would exist. A miracle is only evidence to those who witnessed it first hand, and that is why it is utterly worthless as evidence for anyone else, except people who want so badly to believe that they will believe anything they read in a book.
If a human knew from Moses attack on life as a visionary that by DNA body owned status they would die.

DNA country historic life attacked the teaching.

Same pyramid temple science practice. rebuilt. Then say when I die I will be when God reacts violently. You will see my deceased human image. In the causes radiation event.

A spirit form image human in the gas heavens will arise even though I will be deceased. You do see it. Lots of humans who say since have seen the same. Get visited. Human reasoning as I should be DNA perfection.

Maybe we should live for bio life span 200 years but now all die sacrificed. Some worse in life sacrifice than others. Then wouldn't we daily see the exact outcome of human spirits deceased being seen? Returning not by sex act but spirit vision.

In a teaching resurrected cause in sciences by God heart core UFO release? The day heavens went dark.

I would say it would be correct. To see the spirits arising due to radiation gas status whilst human DNA is being destroyed.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
First.. the bible isn't composed of one source.. the new testament is a collection of the documented evidence available to the community forming it at the time.. If one takes all the historical accounts from those who witness and put them in one book called the bible.. then obviously you won't find any elsewhere.. the thing is.. people who really witnessed it.. became Christian, and the best of their documented accounts became the new testament..
Even the Gospels aren't historical accounts. The first was written decades after the supposed events. There was no Mark, Luke, Matthew, or Ringo. So your assertion here is dead wrong. Historical accounts need to have cross verification, which just does;t exist for the Bible stories. Plus, the supernatural elements are not consistent with reality, so that is an even higher burden and a need for more facts and confirmation.

it's like if someone had plenty of evidence that Joebob committed the murder.. and the defense says: isn't there any evidence outside of what the prosecution has? I can't trust it if they are the only source.. but the prosecution isn't the source.. it's just organizing the sources.. the evidence was collected from multiple sources and compiled in one place for convenience..
To be a proper analogy the prosecution claims Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are the witnesses. And when these witnesses fail to show up on the day of the trial ......well.

So the entire concept of there being a lack of evidence outside the bible is just MORONIC .. only someone that doesn't think things through and investigate would draw such a brain-dead conclusion that there is a lack of sources just because we put all the best ones together in a book.
OK, make a short list of evidence outside the Bible that supports the idea that Jesus was resurrected. Five should be enough to make your point.

So yes.. it's hard to find evidence outside of the main stack of collection of evidence.. yeah. know.. cause that's where mankind makes an effort to keep it.. all together in one book called the bible.. why is it surprising that most the evidence is where we actually try to keep it??
I'm glad you've done the work for us, so go ahead and provide that list so we can acknowledge your claims are true.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The New Testament is not recognized as "evidence" You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple principle, Jackson. This is why scholars look for what is called "extra-Biblical" evidence to try to prove what the Bible claims. And they're having no luck finding anything that proves there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection.
How would any extra-Biblical writings prove any more than the Bible itself? How could anyone prove there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection? Unless someone actually witnessed the resurrection, it would just be someone taking someone else's word for it that there were eyewitnesses, and how could we trust sources that are 2000 years old to be accurate? That's not evidence.

In 1850 AD, a miracle occurred when the Bab was executed by firing squad of 750 rifles and did not die, but rather he had disappeared from sight when the smoke cleared, and later he turned up back in his prison cell unharmed. That was witnessed by about ten thousand people and written up in European newspapers. This is recorded history, and still the only people who believe in the miracle are the Baha'is.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
But that's just not the case.. The scriptures of the bible are pulled from sources spanning many generations, all working together to create one big complete image.. and if you remove the new testament.. it's missing what the old testament predicts.. The key to seeing the big picture is found in viewing it all through the lens of the teaching Jesus provides in the Gospel.. legitimating the Gospel accounts.. which have multiple sources themself. - then we have the remaining church leadership that Jesus left behind and the accounts of them setting up the church.. and the church histories all come back to that same point that they claim to come from..
But they do not "work together". That is only creative reinterpretation quite often. Also you forgot that the Gospels and other New Testament books went through what was largely a political selection process. If a book did not agree with what was decided was the "right story" it was rejected And usually destroyed. Very few of the competitors survived to today. A few have been found and they tend to contradict some of the stories that the others have.

You are guilty of the same thing. You want to interpret the Bible based upon your version of the Jesus story. That is not how a proper interpretation is done. It is prone to all sorts of confirmation bias. That sort of interpretation is why there are thousands of different sects of Christianity.

You also used the phrase "eyewitnesses". What eyewitnesses?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
O earth a stone planet natural once surrounded by just space. Cooling.

O cooling.

O sealed but hot inside. Bursts.

Heavens get formed are immaculate.

Meaning not burning. Not sacrificed.

Relativity. Man human earth science teaching.

Planet gets attacked. As sun cooling bursts like a planet. Yet the sun is a huge mass.

Set alight once only earth immaculate gases.

How light gases burning was caused.

Relativity.

Owned no other form science teaching.

Said by a living human theist about observation. Being healthy. A human thinker. I own natural history Natural light. Yet the heavens before you owned it.

Other thinker I own light.

You however are not the sacrificed immaculate.

How would you get attacked?

Answer burning gases light would get you at the ground life living safely beneath water mass. Cloud forms.

Proving you wrong when you claimed you owned it.

God heavens did.

Sea of son. Heavens change. Is not gas natural history. It's heavens in space history.

4 reasons reasoned.+ The cross.

The four of the cross having no ownership the heavens. No status four named inference.

You would read four bodies stories and it would make no science sense.

Four themes not relevant science statement. In human reality.

However natural life lived by natural four seasons. Change natural.

Ownership son. Sea son natural. Not science status. By observation experience only lived.

God earth never owned four sea son.

Heavens however experienced change.

Not science.

No status to theory about heavens as a theist liar heavenly experimenter by machine status.

Life cells would change.
Blood would change.
Skin conditions rashes would be abundant proof. As chemical irradiation effect. Chemical however not radiation.

No knowledge he would experimentally claim. Bio chemicals did not exist originally as he starts to destroy life.

Experimental science wisdom would reason changes medical to human life form.

Four seasons don't change life health.

The cross

Would then quote four cross was a holy story about O earths God status.

Not science.

Would say why science caused life sacrifice.

Put one body on the cross when four causes supported heavenly changes a reasoning only.

Is not science.
Was not said for science.
Was a statement against science that lied doing conversion within heavenly mass that changed by four sea of the son. Not by one son.

The teaching.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
How would any extra-Biblical writings prove any more than the Bible itself? How could anyone prove there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection? Unless someone actually witnessed the resurrection, it would just be someone taking someone else's word for it that there were eyewitnesses, and how could we trust sources that are 2000 years old to be accurate? That's not evidence.

In 1850 AD, a miracle occurred when the Bab was executed by firing squad of 750 rifles and did not die, but rather he had disappeared from sight when the smoke cleared, and later he turned up back in his prison cell unharmed. That was witnessed by about ten thousand people and written up in European newspapers. This is recorded history, and still the only people who believe in the miracle are the Baha'is.

Very simple. If we had Philo--who was in Jerusalem at this time--write "The most extraordinary thing occurred on Passover. The sun went dark for 3 hours while a prophet named Jeshua ben Joseph was being crucified. A great earthquake shook the whole of the city knocking down buildings and opening graves. Astonishingly, dead saints came out of their tombs and appeared to many in Jerusalem. I myself witnessed the great veil in the Holy of Holies torn in two from top to bottom. No man could have accomplished these grand feats, only the son of God" that would be enough to convince me.

But Philo writes nothing of these extraordinary claims Matthew makes. Obviously Matthew was lying for shock value.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
If Jesus rose in a physical body, what He would have been showing us would be false, because physical bodies do not come back to life after three days; but if Jesus rose in a spiritual body to show us we could also rise that way that would make some kind of sense, since that is what will happen after we die. But Christians would have us believe that Jesus rose in a physical body because that is more spectacular,so they can say their religion is superior to all other religions. Frankly, I find that offensive.

Jesus resurrected Lazarus after 4 days. You are telling us about the limitations of your own beliefs not what's true.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Very simple. If we had Philo--who was in Jerusalem at this time--write "The most extraordinary thing occurred on Passover. The sun went dark for 3 hours while a prophet named Jeshua ben Joseph was being crucified. A great earthquake shook the whole of the city knocking down buildings and opening graves. Astonishingly, dead saints came out of their tombs and appeared to many in Jerusalem. I myself witnessed the great veil in the Holy of Holies torn in two from top to bottom. No man could have accomplished these grand feats, only the son of God" that would be enough to convince me.

But Philo writes nothing of these extraordinary claims Matthew makes. Obviously Matthew was lying for shock value.
Do you even believe in God at all???
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Notice I didn't say, "I refuse to" The point is I cannot believe in it.

I watched a debate on the resurrection this morning. At some point, Matt Dillahunty came out and asked "Do you have anything outside the Bible to support the resurrection." Jonathan McLatchie answered. "NO."

That's it in a nutshell. All apologists--Craig, Licona, Horn, Woods, et al use nothing but the Bible to lay out their "evidence" Jesus rose. Claim: the apostles saw something that convinced them. Fact: There is no secular evidence anywhere outside the Bible that mentions the apostles. Claim: the empty tomb. Fact we have no empty tomb. Claim: the apostles were willing to die for their belief. Fact: we have nothing inside and outside the Bible that mentions what most of the apostles subsequently did or how they died. Claim: There were eyewitnesses. Fact: Nobody outside the Bible recorded a single thing about seeing Jesus after he was crucified.

Outrageous claim:

The historical evidence shows that: the grave was empty; the grave clothes were neatly left behind; the stone enclosing the tomb was rolled away; the body of Jesus was never found.

10 Concise Pieces of Evidence for the Resurrection - The Gospel Coalition | Canada

WHAT historical evidence????????
1f632.png


I mean in the link above it gets much MUCH worse than that.

Fact: take away the Bible and any "proof" for Jesus' resurrection collapses.

There are many examples of people who were thought to be dead and who came back to life. People have been buried alive, because they appeared dead. Later they find finger nail scratches from when they regain consciousness.

Jesus was a carpenter and he was accused of being a drunken and glutton. This to me, means he was a man in his 30's who was in good physical shape, who was not deprived of food or drink water. His body would be healthy and durable. He could take torture longer than most.

He may have been placed in the tomb, in an unconscious state from pain. After the shock wears off, he awakens. Was the eating and drinking of Jesus part of his preparation for the abuse he would need to suffer?
 
If I told you I shot 18 holes in one on the golf course today would you believe me? if I said I could produce 4 witnesses who would swear to it would you believe me then? If i said in addition, 500 people on the course saw me do this would you then believe me? But if you asked me for their names and I said I couldn't produce them, what then? Would you still believe me? How's this any different from Christianity's claims?
Because we do know who they are, at least some, the evidence is their changed life and ours. It’s not an empty promise that God gives believers. He gives the Holy Spirit, power to live a godly life free from the power that sin and death has over people. So in your example God’s grace would enable believers the ability to shoot 18 hole in ones on the golf course.
 
Top