Is there evidence of Jesus' ressurection?

[Charmander#4]

Secondly, if crucifixion was any good as a method of execution, wouldn't it have been used more throughout history? Obviously in Christian regions it wasn't, but it wasn't used much even in areas that weren't Christian.

Because it took forever and was ****ing inhumane?

 

[SnowyPiplup]

Erhem. What about ghosts? Aren't they resurrected spirits, too? And of course some people don't believe in ghosts, but...

Think about it this way; there really is no evidence but your faith. If you don't believe in Christianity, that's just fine, but us Christians don't believe in your confusing evolution thing either. We both think each other's things are scams, but think about it; there is no evidence either way.

Yes, you may say there's evidence for evolution, but were we there to see it? I don't think so.

The answer to this thread can only be found out when we die...

 

[bel9]

Think about it this way; there really is no evidence but your faith. If you don't believe in Christianity, that's just fine, but us Christians don't believe in your confusing evolution thing either.

Uhm, Hi. I'm a Catholic. I believe in evolution.

We both think each other's things are scams, but think about it; there is no evidence either way.

No. No. It is not an either/or. The two can coexist. Please stop re-enforcing the myth.

 

[cantab]

us Christians don't believe in your confusing evolution thing either.

The vast majority of Christians believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection as describing the origin of species on Earth.

EDIT: Beaten to it.

 

[legendarypokemonmaster]

Think about it this way; there really is no evidence but your faith. If you don't believe in Christianity, that's just fine, but us Christians don't believe in your confusing evolution thing either. We both think each other's things are scams, but think about it; there is no evidence either way.

No, no, no. This sounds really ignorant. Evolution does not go against Christianity, and has a ton of evidence.

 

[Charmander#4]

evidence? such as?
as i recall there have been no links found yet
and almost all claims of evo;ution have been subsequently refuted by the scientific communty

Science works like this:

You make up a theory. E.g.: Everyone in the world has hair on their heads.

Now, I can go around thinking that this theory is correct until I see a bald person. When that happens, the theory is disproved.

This applies to everything. Everything is a theory that can be proven wrong at all times. The only absolute in science is that there are no absolutes.

Evolution has yet to be proven wrong, and as such, it is sensible to assume that Darwin was right. Furthermore, there are numerous indicators that it is correct. Darwin got the idea while observing finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Where's your proof of the existence of a divinity? Do you have anything, other than the accounts of witnesses and singular events that might as well be attributed to coincidence?

 

[VictiniTrainer]

Think about it this way; there really is no evidence but your faith. If you don't believe in Christianity, that's just fine, but us Christians don't believe in your confusing evolution thing either. We both think each other's things are scams, but think about it;

Uhm, Hi. Im a christian and i believe in evolution.

 

[charizardreams]

Think about it this way; there really is no evidence but your faith. If you don't believe in Christianity, that's just fine, but us Christians don't believe in your confusing evolution thing either. We both think each other's things are scams, but think about it; there is no evidence either way.

Yes, you may say there's evidence for evolution, but were we there to see it? I don't think so.

The answer to this thread can only be found out when we die...

Dude, seriously? I know I've been beaten to it, but you can be a Christian and be an Evolutionist? Yes, there are certain theories in each that contradict each other, but you don't have to believe those parts one way. I'm not religious, in fact, I'm Atheist, but regardless before I decided that I didn't believe I still believed in both a higher Deity and evolution.

There is lots of evidence for evolution, and yes, we haven't directly seen it, but that's because we haven't lived for, oh, try 10,000s of years? Here's somethings that took me less than a second to go and google:

The first result provides lots of information. But because you're probably not going to read it, here's some important evidence for evolution mentioned:

Firstly, fossils have recorded changes within species. If that wasn't obvious enough. Secondly, there are many chemical and anatomical similarities between some similar species that could of resulted from evolution. Thirdly there are widespread geographical distributions of some related species. Fourthly there have been recorded genetic changes in living organisms through generations. If all of those aren't evidence enough, Here is another website that took me seconds to google.

Who says there isn't a creator and there isn't evolution at the same time? We don't honestly know.

But that isn't really the topic at hand (I just had to say something, though), so moving on...

Personally I believe the "evidence" for Jesus's resurrection as little to go by. Yes, all Gospels recorded it as happening and even other religions as mentioned before have recorded it, but who says that then this must be true? Does J.K. Rowling writing Harry Potter as true making it true? Does somebody else backing her up force that statement to be true? I know it's a horrible example, but it's was really the first thing that came to mind.

I'm not comparing Harry Potter to the bible or anything, but really, by saying somebody (who, is, allegedly the virgin born son of God) died on the cross and three days later magically came alive again, I sorta don't see how that makes a difference. Unless, by some holy miracle, he wasn't dead after he was buried (as proved possible by some posts above), I don't really see how people can believe that if only the Gospels and some other bibles recorded it.

It's just words. Words can be twisted and lied easily. There is no concrete evidence. Yes, the bible can be considered as a source, but what other sources, aside from these "Holy" texts, are there? Show me physical proof of it. Concrete evidence that can't be forged or twisted, and I think the resurrection could be actually believable.

But really, it all comes down to faith. If you believe in something to be true deep down, even if somebody tells you it isn't the truth, isn't that evidence enough?

edit: didn't see the post above me, so imma reply to that as well:

the most crippling evidence against evolution would be the missing links
you can beleive in evolution if you want i'm just if you want to beleive that youre anscestors are poo slinging apes, by all means, belive what you want.

There's always going to be another missing link. Where are all the links to prove religion? As mentioned above, there is no hard proof that all this stuff happened. Besides, right now I think you're ancestors could be "poo slinging apes" for all your spelling. Besides, I'd be happy to have apes as my ancestors. Aren't Apes some of the most intelligent animals?...

 

[7 tyranitars]

the common mistake..

i could say the same about these claims of evolution which as i previously pointed out, has been disproven, on many accounts.
the most crippling evidence against evolution would be the missing links
you can beleive in evolution if you want i'm just if you want to beleive that youre ancestors are poo slinging apes, by all means, belive what you want.

typical answer from an ignorant christian, we are not ancestors from apes apes and humans have the same ancestors, also a lot of thos missing links have been 'filled' and it will continue to.

it's funny how you comment evolution as having bad evidence last time I checked religion doesn't have any evidence at all. besides the bible but that argument is basicly 'it iezz tru cuz I say so!'

 

[Charmander#4]

i could say the same about these claims of evolution which as i previously pointed out, has been disproven, on many accounts.
the most crippling evidence against evolution would be the missing links
you can beleive in evolution if you want i'm just if you want to beleive that youre anscestors are poo slinging apes, by all means, belive what you want.

Bones are destroyed within a relatively short time of lying in the ground. This leaves an imprint which most often just gets erased at some point. Sometimes, very rarely, they are instead filled with a kind of material that differs from what's around it. This is how fossils are created. With such unlikely origins, can you really expect many fossils to show up? Several entire dinosaur species are known from single, partial fossils. As charizardreams mentioned, there will always be a missing link, and there's no way to provide evidence enough for you to be satisfied. On the other hand, where is your evidence that there is a God? If you can demand evidence, then so can I.

 

[□□□□□]

You say there is no evidence the bible is true and jesus' ressurection cant be proved. Prophets kept following the teachings of jesus, So it continued long after his death. it wasnt till 40 yrs later that human was able to record it.isnt it quite strange how you yourself say it was written long ago, how would you go about explaining the bible telling the future? it claims that a small country will rule the world(saudi arabia, what is more powerful than oil?) when jesus is said to ressurect......

 

[Charmander#4]

You say there is no evidence the bible is true and jesus' ressurection cant be proved. Prophets kept following the teachings of jesus, So it continued long after his death. it wasnt till 40 yrs later that human was able to record it.isnt it quite strange how you yourself say it was written long ago, how would you go about explaining the bible telling the future? it claims that a small country will rule the world(saudi arabia, what is more powerful than oil?) when jesus is said to ressurect......

A million monkeys on a million typewriters.

Try taking every single prophecy in the Bible, and list all of the ones that have come true versus the ones that haven't.

Also, the more vague a prophecy is, the easier for it to come true. Saudi Arabia does not rule the world. If they really did decide to screw around, they would lose all remnants of autonomy before they had time to raise the oil price anymore.

Besides, electric cars do exist. The major oil companies are just holding them back ATM.

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

Humans didn't 'come from' apes, we are apes, in the same way that we're also still monkeys, mammals, reptiles and so on back to the first life. You can't out-grow your ancestry.

As for divine resurrection of God's own earthly avatar, I think that claims of that magnitude require corresponding amounts of evidence and four documents written significantly after this so called 'sacrifice' are not very compelling, especially since the authors had a vested interest in convincing others of their claims.

 

[cantab]

how would you go about explaining the bible telling the future? it claims that a small country will rule the world(saudi arabia, what is more powerful than oil?) when jesus is said to ressurect......

The Roman Empire started out as a small country. Mongolia started out as a small country. The British Empire started out as a small country. Germany in 1939 was a small country. The United States of America was once a few small colonies that declared independence. Etc etc etc. Hardly an amazing prediction there.

Also, everyone, evolution is not the topic of this debate. We're supposed to be discussing Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Evolution is irrelevant to that, unless you want to get into details of human anatomy or the structure of wood.

 

[meteor64]

I don't know much about the ins and outs of Jesus' resurrection, but I do know this.

If we had bonafide solid evidence that Jesus was resurrected, there wouldn't be anywhere near the diversity in beliefs we have today. It'd be the same if we had undeniable evidence of the Big Bang, or Hanuman, or Xenu.

But we don't. So...

 

[Mariya Shidou]

No, there is no evidence that specifically points to Jesus' resurrection. However, I remember being told something to the effect that his grave was found empty not long after his death -- but that proves nothing. It could just as well have been grave robbers.

That may well have been ********, though. I'll have to dig up sources.

No. There is no definite evidence.

But the lack of evidence does not discredit or change the importance of the story.

It doesn't change the importance, but arguably, it should discredit it.

Secondly, if crucifixion was any good as a method of execution, wouldn't it have been used more throughout history? Obviously in Christian regions it wasn't, but it wasn't used much even in areas that weren't Christian.

All things considered, I don't think it's at all implausible that Jesus simply survived his crucifixion.

Crucifixion was, as stated, slow and inhumane. It should also be noted that often crucified persons were merely bound to the cross without being wounded and left to die of exposure.

but us Christians don't believe in your confusing evolution thing either.

You are so very, very wrong that I must assume you're a troll. Christians can easily believe in evolution. For a rather stereotypical example: evolution could be called God's will. Done.

Now, sit down.

 

[bel9]

It doesn't change the importance, but arguably, it should discredit it.

Okay, but you seemed to misunderstand my post. Maybe not everyone that believes cares about the credibility. Maybe there are some of the people looking at it from a different perspective similar to the one I stated. I don't care about the "credibility". I care about what the story represents as a whole.

 

[Mariya Shidou]

Okay, but you seemed to misunderstand my post. Maybe not everyone that believes cares about the credibility. Maybe there are some of the people looking at it from a different perspective similar to the one I stated. I don't care about the "credibility". I care about what the story represents as a whole.

Of course. But the story as it is literally presented should not be considered a credible event without proof. Accepting its symbolic meaning and what it represents, though, are still fair game. As a literal event, though...

Although I suppose that you could still believe it and say that God would cover evidence, but then you reach an impasse, or "Why would God cover up the evidence?" and... another... impasse...

 

[bel9]

Of course. But the story as it is literally presented should not be considered a credible event without proof.

When did I ever say I wanted it to be a credible event?

 

[meteor64]

Erm...you're a Christian. You should believe in Jesus Christ's ressurection. So... by default, you want it to be a credible event.

Unless I've got the idea of faith all wrong.