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 records of his resurrection or ascension have been found.
Paul, who was not a witness to either, wrote in 1 Cor 15 (c. 53-57 AD) that Jesus had appeared to 500 witnesses. That group of people would logically have included Jews, Romans, Greeks, and various other Gentiles residing in Jerusalem.
Paul’s letter was written to Corinth, 813 miles from Jerusalem in which these things were supposed to have taken place.
None of the 500 witnesses nor any of the thousands they would reasonably have told left any written records
.
Based on the evidence, what historical credibility does the fact of the Resurrection have?
Last edited by Aristotles child; 12-30-2016 at 06:00 PM..
Reason: typo
Jesus was crucified by the Romans c. 30 – 33 AD.
No records of his resurrection or ascension have been found.
Paul, who was not a witness to either, wrote in 1 Cor 15 (c. 53-57 AD) that Jesus had appeared to 500 witnesses. That group of people would logically have included Jews, Romans, Greeks, and various other Gentiles residing in Jerusalem.
Paul’s letter was written to Corinth, 813 miles from Jerusalem in which these things were supposed to have taken place.
None of the 500 witnesses nor any of the thousands they would reasonably have told left any written records
.
Based on the evidence, what historical credibility does the fact of the Resurrection have?
The Apostle Peter details an eye-witness account of both in Acts 2.
The only proof is that people who believe and call on the Lord can receive His Holy Spirit and be born again which is a profound way which every believer who receives this new creation from God confirms the promise of the Father made to Jesus at the resurrection to send His spirit from Acts 1,2, and millions of Christians have received this promise would be the only historical proof , as the world of historians is blinded of the things of God and would ignore the testimony of millions of people .....
Based on the evidence, what historical credibility does the fact of the Resurrection have?
Absolutely none whatsoever (and the resurrection isn't a 'fact', it's a belief). Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse. Before looking at whether or not the resurrection is historically credible, it would be better to look if the Jesus of the gospels is historically credible. The answer to that of course is a resounding no...and that my friend answers the question in your OP.
The only proof is that people who believe and call on the Lord can receive His Holy Spirit and be born again which is a profound way which every believer who receives this new creation from God confirms the promise of the Father made to Jesus at the resurrection to send His spirit from Acts 1,2, and millions of Christians have received this promise would be the only historical proof , as the world of historians is blinded of the things of God and would ignore the testimony of millions of people .....
RESPONSE: Kind of wishful thinking, isn't it?
Are you offering an actual evidence of a Resurrection?
No records of his resurrection or ascension have been found.
Paul, who was not a witness to either, wrote in 1 Cor 15 (c. 53-57 AD) that Jesus had appeared to 500 witnesses. That group of people would logically have included Jews, Romans, Greeks, and various other Gentiles residing in Jerusalem.
Paul’s letter was written to Corinth, 813 miles from Jerusalem in which these things were supposed to have taken place.
None of the 500 witnesses nor any of the thousands they would reasonably have told left any written records
.
Based on the evidence, what historical credibility does the fact of the Resurrection have?
Have you looked for extrabiblical acounts in secular history?
The Nazareth Inscription took the scholarly world by storm because, as will be seen, it could be read as an imperial decree against the Apostles stealing Christ’s body from His tomb and faking His resurrection. It is also very similar to the Jewish high-priestly version of the resurrection of Christ as found in Matthew 28:11-15—in other words, His disciples stole His body from the tomb.
Cumont’s publication of the Nazareth Inscription led to a snowstorm of scholarly articles; more than twenty were published by the end of 1932. None of these early articles questioned the authenticity of the Nazareth Inscription. It is highly unlikely that it is a forgery. As will be seen, the Greek text of this Inscription and its historical connections provide strong support for its authenticity. However, its interpretation and possible connection to the story of the resurrection of Christ are still hotly debated today.
If you want other extrabiblical accounts; there is verification of the darkness at His crucifixion; one secular historian, Thallus, made the mistake of saying that it was caused by an eclipse, but another secular historian, Julius Africanus, said that it was unlikely because there was a full moon that day.
P.S. This site will list some gnostic sources wherein I do not believe those lost books of the Bible are scripture, but frauds because they contain verses that run against the truths in the accepted books of the Bible;
But the site does list secular historical sources validating the unexplained darkness at His crucifixon.
Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus' crucifixion:
"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]
So feel free to use the internet in finding other extrabiblical sources supporting indirectly the Biblical account of Jesus Christ.
Last edited by PoorInSpirit; 12-31-2016 at 09:58 AM..
Jesus was crucified by the Romans c. 30 – 33 AD.
No records of his resurrection or ascension have been found.
Paul, who was not a witness to either, wrote in 1 Cor 15 (c. 53-57 AD) that Jesus had appeared to 500 witnesses. That group of people would logically have included Jews, Romans, Greeks, and various other Gentiles residing in Jerusalem.
Paul’s letter was written to Corinth, 813 miles from Jerusalem in which these things were supposed to have taken place.
None of the 500 witnesses nor any of the thousands they would reasonably have told left any written records
.
Based on the evidence, what historical credibility does the fact of the Resurrection have?
Yes. Of course it's credible. We have 4 books written about Jesus from the first century, as well as the church that was founded and grew exponentially as a result. Those cannot be dismissed.
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.
Is the story of the Resurrection historically credible?
