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.
Yes, there is no real objective evidence ever discovered, just writings of uncertain providence that he was seen, or that the tomb was empty. Testimonial evidence in other words, blunted and blurred by time.
So really what you have is faith that the marginal evidence is real - either as taught to you in whatever bible was used in Sunday school, or faith that more original sources are "right."
Yes, there is no real objective evidence ever discovered, just writings of uncertain providence that he was seen, or that the tomb was empty. Testimonial evidence in other words, blunted and blurred by time.
So really what you have is faith that the marginal evidence is real - either as taught to you in whatever bible was used in Sunday school, or faith that more original sources are "right."
I agree. But there are a fair share of Christians out there that believe that the eyewitness accounts are concrete evidence of of a physical resurrection.
I just want to know what others think but I also want to know of these people that believe that he was physically resurrected believe it based on faith or evidence.
I really have to wonder if you seriously think you will find that sort of evidence here despite the fact that none exists wherever you might look from more professional sources. The best way to convince yourself one way or another is to seriously look for evidence where it might best be found. That's not here. Unless as I suspect this is more for entertainment purposes, or to see what people will claim to be evidence that really is nothing of the sort.
The sort of thing, on the other hand, is quite easily found in this forum...
I agree. But there are a fair share of Christians out there that believe that the eyewitness accounts are concrete evidence of of a physical resurrection.
There are a great deal more than a fair share of religious people who believe all manner of things for which no evidence exists to support such beliefs. Ever talk to a Mormon about Joseph Smith accounts?
Where do you fall as far as your belief in Jesus?
1. Do you believe Jesus was divine and was resurrected in a physical form? If yes, do you simply believe this as a theological assertion or do you have actual evidence that you can provide that makes this belief true?
//snip?
Divine, His incarnate body tortured/died; resurrected into glorified form; Living Bread come down from Heaven present even today & dwelling with those who Love and obey Him and the Father, right where He said He would be.
Grew up with theological belief, but stumbled/doubted till looking/seeking/needing and finding re: that last part, seeing Him in the lives of those loving/obeying Him. Sealed the deal for me when I got my turn in a protracted NDE - my pov is now from the other side.
For a little bit I was entertaining the idea that Jesus did not exist. I spent a lot of time listening to lectures and researching this, but I just don't see any compelling argument for it. To me it seems you have to make a lot of assumptions to reach this conclusion and the evidence we have is much better explained by there actually being a man, Jesus, who was doing things that created a religious movement.
So I would say Jesus probably did exist, but probably wasn't resurrected.
For a little bit I was entertaining the idea that Jesus did not exist. I spent a lot of time listening to lectures and researching this, but I just don't see any compelling argument for it. To me it seems you have to make a lot of assumptions to reach this conclusion and the evidence we have is much better explained by there actually being a man, Jesus, who was doing things that created a religious movement.
So I would say Jesus probably did exist, but probably wasn't resurrected.
So I would say Jesus probably did exist, but absolutely wasn't resurrected.
and actually. it doesn't matter if he existed or not anymore. Just assume he did.
So I would say Jesus probably did exist, but absolutely wasn't resurrected.
and actually. it doesn't matter if he existed or not anymore. Just assume he did.
It doesn't change a thing.
I don't have to assume anything. I have no evidence that he was resurrected or not, so I won't talk in absolutes. I have no evidence of anyone ever being resurrected, so I would place my bets on he wasn't resurrected but I can't prove that statement, so I won't assert it as fact.
For a little bit I was entertaining the idea that Jesus did not exist. I spent a lot of time listening to lectures and researching this, but I just don't see any compelling argument for it. To me it seems you have to make a lot of assumptions to reach this conclusion and the evidence we have is much better explained by there actually being a man, Jesus, who was doing things that created a religious movement.
So I would say Jesus probably did exist, but probably wasn't resurrected.
I make no assumptions, I use what the early texts literally say, or say when the evidence is not conclusive enough. It is the historicist who has to make assumptions such as Q.
I don't have to assume anything. I have no evidence that he was resurrected or not, so I won't talk in absolutes. I have no evidence of anyone ever being resurrected, so I would place my bets on he wasn't resurrected but I can't prove that statement, so I won't assert it as fact.
I think your position is fair and reasonable.
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.