Evidence Jesus rose from the dead? (disciple, America, church, Christianity)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can anyone possibly contest the facts of Christ's resurrection and return to live among men? The written evidence is just as strong as the fact that George Washington cut down his father's cherry tree and then said< "I cannot tell a lie, father, I did it," or the fact that George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac.
Read the book, it's all there.
Okay, I just can't tell if this sarcasm or not. It looks a lot like sarcasm until I get down to "Read the book, it's all there", which for some reason makes me think you're serious. So let me know one way or the other, and please, don't let me know in a sarcastic way, it'll go right over my head.
Okay, I just can't tell if this sarcasm or not. It looks a lot like sarcasm until I get down to "Read the book, it's all there", which for some reason makes me think you're serious. So let me know one way or the other, and please, don't let me know in a sarcastic way, it'll go right over my head.
Your ability to detect sarcasm is outstanding! WOOSH!!!
All this resurrection stuff is very widespread! I'm sure us agnostics would love to be convinced, after all "nothingness" is a bit depressing, but the evidence doesn't stack up. The old 'life, death, rebirth" cycle is very common. To mention but a few: Jullungal (Australian aborigonal); Tammaz and Ishtar: Pheonix; Quetzalcoatl; Adonis; Ishmum; Zalmoxis; Izanagi (Japanese);Odin; Attis; Kostroma;Obatala etc etc etc
It's really on the same level as Virgin Birth which has examples in Hindu; Sufism; Buddha;Assyrian; Greek and Aztec. Maybe us humans lack imagination and steal each others ideas.
*Everyone* knows Mark 16:9-20 is not found in the oldest manuscripts. The footnotes say as much in all of my Bibles. Mark was not an eyewitness to the resurrection.
If everyone knows it, why did you ask what the other poster meant?
Quote:
However Matthew, John, Peter and James were. Further, the book of Luke was based on other eyewitness interviews and accounts and put together by Dr. Luke, who also wrote the Book of Acts
I'm sure you have extra-Biblical documentation for these historical claims, right?
All this resurrection stuff is very widespread! I'm sure us agnostics would love to be convinced, after all "nothingness" is a bit depressing, but the evidence doesn't stack up. The old 'life, death, rebirth" cycle is very common. To mention but a few: Jullungal (Australian aborigonal); Tammaz and Ishtar: Pheonix; Quetzalcoatl; Adonis; Ishmum; Zalmoxis; Izanagi (Japanese);Odin; Attis; Kostroma;Obatala etc etc etc
Yeah, but Jesus is THE CHRIST, you know. Extra special... just because.
While it is true that such extraordinary claims take a bit of believing, that a resurrection event is so extraordinary is not in itself proof that it couldn't have happened. A reliable account of this having occurred would at least have a claim to be taken seriously.
Thus the Gospel account is itself presented as evidence. Even though there is no real historical corroboration of it. It really is the case of the writings themselves being open to so much question that makes them more arguments against a resurrection than for it, as otherwise, there would not have been the need to fabricate the various accounts.
So I suppose I am looking for more evidence to support the claim. But I don't know where it will come from, as most of the further evidence for the gospel account tends towards fiddling and rewriting them to try to gloss over the contradictions that discredit them as evidence. That's where we don't get into special pleading about how could a huge and successful religion be based on a lie?
If everyone knows it, why did you ask what the other poster meant?
I'm sure you have extra-Biblical documentation for these historical claims, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
While it is true that such extraordinary claims take a bit of believing, that a resurrection event is so extraordinary is not in itself proof that it couldn't have happened. A reliable account of this having occurred would at least have a claim to be taken seriously.
Thus the Gospel account is itself presented as evidence. Even though there is no real historical corroboration of it. It really is the case of the writings themselves being open to so much question that makes them more arguments against a resurrection than for it, as otherwise, there would not have been the need to fabricate the various accounts.
So I suppose I am looking for more evidence to support the claim. But I don't know where it will come from, as most of the further evidence for the gospel account tends towards fiddling and rewriting them to try to gloss over the contradictions that discredit them as evidence. That's where we don't get into special pleading about how could a huge and successful religion be based on a lie?
Read up on how your arguments, while nice, don't really stand up to careful review and fail to convince Christians. Speculation and opinion are all well and good, but...
The purpose of a historian is to point out how things happened or to infer reasonably how things probably occurred based on other historical events or evidence. When something is claimed as a miracle it means it must fall outside what can be measured historically.
When it comes to the resurrection, it is considered a miracle, something outside everyday events. There is no way to historically prove or disprove a miracle. A historian can state that there are no other events to point to such a "miracle," but if there were, it wouldn't be a miracle.
On the other hand, there is plenty of historical and textual criticism evidence pointing to the fact that not a single author of the New Testament even KNEW Jesus in the flesh. Did they record oral traditions of those who knew Jesus? Mostly we can infer that they did. But were those events altered in the re-telling? Almost certainly they were. Therefore with regard to much of the NT in particular, there is an element of doubt with regard to the details conveyed in the message.
As a Christian I convey continuously to other Christians how inappropriate it is to have any kind of "evidence" based faith. If it is based on evidence, then by definition it is not faith. It simply amazes me that so many Christians have an apparent need to convince others of the reality God and Christ as resurrected Lord using "evidence." It is symptomatic of immature faith.
What should be at least a curiosity to non-believers is that the "miracle" of the resurrection has lived on for centuries despite the lack of proof one way or the other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No historical proof
