Is there evidence of Jesus' ressurection?

[Sadib]

The bible cannot be disproved by science its called religion we are free to believe what we want to. case closed

You completely missed the point of the topic. We're trying to find proof of Jesus's resurrection. Please read the title of the topic before posting.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Ok give a list of evidence outside the bible so that we can debate him. (Unless you want to say Mohamad assended into heaven b/c it says so in the Quran, written withen the lifetime of eyewitnesses.)

You've got to be kidding me. In my very first post in this debate I showed a source from Jews who rejected Jesus, who accused Him of doing sorcery. This was either ignored or, when noticed, my argument about it was misrepresented. And here's a post where I clarified the issue:

Spoiler: clarification

Anyway, remember what I said. It isn't just that the Jews said he practiced sorcery. It was that if they knew He had done no miracles, they could have said so. Here's how the conversation between Jews and Christians would have gone down if they knew He had done no miracles:

Christian: Jesus was the Messiah! He did miracles, taught, and when He was crucified, He came back to life.
Jew: What? I didn't see any miracles. Are you talking about that teacher? You think that guy did miracles? Yeah, and I'm Yassar Arafat! Hahahaha!​

Instead, it went something like this:

Christian: Jesus was the Messiah! He did miracles, taught, and when He was crucified, He came back to life.
Jew: This cannot be! He was a deceiver who practiced sorcery! He was only able to cast out demons because he was empowered by the wicked one!​

I said that if you believe that jesus rose from the dead you also have to believe that Mohamed assended into heaven b/c they were written in the lifetime of eye witneses. Why should I buy the bible and ignore the Quran?

No, ebilly99, there were no eyewitnesses to Muhammad's ascension. If I recall correctly, he reported that it happened in a dream. And where in the Qur'an is that anyway? I'm pretty sure that is found in later Islamic tradition, not the Qur'an.

I can see that so let me change the question just a little. Provide evidence that could be given to court as evidence.

Hey, there's no statute of limitations on murder, so the written testimony of someone who died years ago can convict someone. Sources from the past can't be discounted simply because skeptics want to discard them.

So how about the testimony of Paul? He persecuted the followers of Jesus, but then he became convinced that he had seen Jesus, whom He knew was crucified as a criminal...alive.

Where do you think that figure of speech originated from? The Bible, and it wasn't a figure of speech back then. It was quite literal.

You have to prove this. Do you have any source or are you just spouting because you want this phrase not to be a figure of speech?

The Qu'ran is still as legitimate as the Bible.

First, that is not really related to the issue. Second, that depends entirely on what you mean by "legitimate." It asks you to assume that it is from God, and the only evidence given for this is the claim that it is the most beautiful-sounding book in the world. This is not evidence.

Thanks for that correction 500 bc means that it was 3500 years after. The evidence is how the Hebrew languge changed from king david to babylon days. I am just saying if in a hundred years you found a NIV bible you would easly be able to tell it was from x time and not the 1700 right

Your figure of 3,500 years is way too large. Are you just saying it's 3,500 years after the earliest events it reports? Moses was supposed to live around 1800 B.C., so if the Torah were written down in the 500s B.C., it would be from merely 1,300 years after those events. (I believe it was written earlier, but for the sake of argument, I'm just going with it.) King David lived around 1000 B.C., so that would be a gap of only 500 years.

In any case, that doesn't matter here. We're talking about the New Testament, which was written before A.D. 100.

ebilly99, stop trying to cast doubt on the New Testament by casting doubt on the Old Testament. They were not written by the same people, and as such, you must treat each New testament author separately.

When was the Bible written anyway? I heard it was written several hundred years after Jesus died.

No, the New Testament was completed by A.D. 100. And Paul wrote within 30 years of Jesus death, meaning his testimony is extremely valuable.

 

[mattj]

When was the Bible written anyway? I heard it was written several hundred years after Jesus died.

a;lskgjas;lkgjas;dlga there is no getting through to you. You heard wrong.

and hello TFP. Glad to see you joined us!

[edit]
Also, ebilly99, I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but directly concerning the discussion we just recently had, you had been asking for first hand, credible evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead (the reason for this whole thread in the first place lol). Somehow I never thought about Paul the Apostle.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

There's really no debate, even from secular historians, over who wrote I Corinthians (Paul), where it was written (Ephesus) or when it was written (53 AD, merely 20 years after Christ's death). If you're looking for a credible eye witness account where someone says "Yes, I personally saw Jesus rise from the dead." I don't think you can beat Paul.

If someone doesn't want to accept it because it's a strictly supernatural claim, that's understandable (though if you reject the supernatural outright, why ask for evidence lol), but I don't really see how anyone could argue that's it's not credible, widely accepted, first hand evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Sadib]

First, that is not really related to the issue. Second, that depends entirely on what you mean by "legitimate." It asks you to assume that it is from God, and the only evidence given for this is the claim that it is the most beautiful-sounding book in the world. This is not evidence.

Both the Qu'ran and the Bible claim that they are from God. What makes one more valid than the other?

 

[mattj]

Talking to you is like talking to a wall.

It depends on which one is the more credible source. I am completely confident that we know who authored the books of the Bible, when most of them were written, and how accurately they were transmitted over the years. I have no idea if the Quaran is reliable. This is why I trust the Bible and not the Quaran.

If you'd like to make a case for the Quaran, I'm all ears, but that really belongs in a topic not titled "Is there evidence of jesus' resurrection". Either make a case for it or stop blabbing. The onus is on you here not me.

 

[ebilly99]

a;lskgjas;lkgjas;dlga there is no getting through to you. You heard wrong.

and hello TFP. Glad to see you joined us!

[edit]
Also, ebilly99, I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but directly concerning the discussion we just recently had, you had been asking for first hand, credible evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead (the reason for this whole thread in the first place lol). Somehow I never thought about Paul the Apostle.


There's really no debate, even from secular historians, over who wrote I Corinthians (Paul), where it was written (Ephesus) or when it was written (53 AD, merely 20 years after Christ's death). If you're looking for a credible eye witness account where someone says "Yes, I personally saw Jesus rise from the dead." I don't think you can beat Paul.

If someone doesn't want to accept it because it's a strictly supernatural claim, that's understandable (though if you reject the supernatural outright, why ask for evidence lol), but I don't really see how anyone could argue that's it's not credible, widely accepted, first hand evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The major problem that most people forget is the avagage lifespan of people without modern meds is 30 years. That means the only ones alive during jesus would have been children. (And the old crazy people)

 

[mattj]

Naaaaaaaaah... I'd have to respectfully disagree. The reason the average lifespan was so short back then actually had much, MUCH more to do with the insanely high infant mortality rate back then than it did with people in general not living long. Lots of people lived into their 60s and 70s and even later, especially if they had wealth or people caring for them. It's just that so very, VERY many infants, and toddlers died because they were/are so weak and back then medicine and pre/natal care was so terrible/nonexistant.

That being said, I can find no serious dispute over whether or not Paul penned this book and this verse.

We're so blessed that we have such a low infant mortality rate these days in this country. In some countries even today it's crazy high.

 

[ebilly99]

Naaaaaaaaah... I'd have to respectfully disagree. The reason the average lifespan was so short back then actually had much, MUCH more to do with the insanely high infant mortality rate back then than it did with people in general not living long. Lots of people lived into their 60s and 70s and even later, especially if they had wealth or people caring for them. It's just that so very, VERY many infants, and toddlers died because they were/are so weak and back then medicine and pre/natal care was so terrible/nonexistant.

That being said, I can find no serious dispute over whether or not Paul penned this book and this verse.

We're so blessed that we have such a low infant mortality rate these days in this country. In some countries even today it's crazy high.

That is exactly true, but remeber Judeah (Except for the temple) was a poor country, Jesus visted the poorest citys. So my point remains valid. Only the poor (who had short lifespans) would have seen jesus raise from the dead (And admitedly there would be a few who would have been 13 or older but they were the minority)

 

[mattj]

You know, that's very true. Judea was poor and did have a "relatively low" median lifespan compared to us now. But you can't forget that Israel is a Mediterranean country, which has a higher than average lifespan because of their excellent diet and lots of exercise. For example Greece has one of the highest median lifespans of any country. Still, they would have had a lower median lifespan than us, but not like terribly low.

But even with that in mind, Paul spent most of his life in Rome. He had a personal physician (Luke) and access to whatever he needed. The New Testament wasn't written entirely in Israel. [edit: on second thought, actually not much of it at all was written there, it was written here and there about Greece, Rome, and the Mediterranean]

And finally, I don't think that one could rightfully argue that because a country as a whole has a low life span, that the Bible's claims that "so and so wrote this book" and "saw that" are necessarily false. The people who died young obviously didn't write the books at a later date. The people who lived long very well could have.

 

[ebilly99]

You know, that's very true. Judea was poor and did have a "relatively low" median lifespan compared to us now. But you can't forget that Israel is a Mediterranean country, which has a higher than average lifespan because of their excellent diet and lots of exercise. For example Greece has one of the highest median lifespans of any country. Still, they would have had a lower median lifespan than us, but not like terribly low.

But even with that in mind, Paul spent most of his life in Rome. He had a personal physician (Luke) and access to whatever he needed. The New Testament wasn't written entirely in Israel. [edit: on second thought, actually not much of it at all was written there, it was written here and there about Greece, Rome, and the Mediterranean]

And finally, I don't think that one could rightfully argue that because a country as a whole has a low life span, that the Bible's claims that "so and so wrote this book" and "saw that" are necessarily false. The people who died young obviously didn't write the books at a later date. The people who lived long very well could have.

You misunderstood, I believe Paul was old, As where some of the deciples. I am just saying the Eyewitness thing gets a little harder when most have died

 

[mattj]

Oh! Absolutely! Absolutely! Agreed!

Paul freely admits in I Cor 15:6 that some of them had passed away, and that was only 20ish years after the resurrection. Some were still around though.

 

[ebilly99]

Oh! Absolutely! Absolutely! Agreed!

Paul freely admits in I Cor 15:6 that some of them had passed away, and that was only 20ish years after the resurrection. Some were still around though.

Yeah, I will give you that (And pauls testimony may be the only one that can be verified) However now the problem arises that in 70 ad Mark is written. How many people (Other then babys at the time) would have still been alive from jesus till the first gospel

 

[mattj]

Absolutely true. It's late now, but tomorrow I'll look into whether any other first hand eye witness accounts exist. Maybe from John or Peter or any of the other disciples who were with Jesus who wrote books. I [personally actually wouldn't rely too much on the Gospels as being the primary source to verify Jesus' resurrection.

 

[UltimatePokemonExpert]

I just wish we could stop these discussions. I believe in Jesus, the guy next to me doesn't, who cares. I get that we Christians are supposed to tell people about it, but not if they don't want to hear it. Why bother having these arguments if they get absolutely no where?

 

[Sadib]

I agree. Who cares if there's no evidence? As long as we know the truth in our hearts, nothing else matters.

 

[mattj]

I agree. Who cares if there's no evidence? As long as we know the truth in our hearts, nothing else matters.

Seriously. What on earth is wrong with you?

Spoiler: just up a few posts, seriously man try reading

[edit]
Also, ebilly99, I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but directly concerning the discussion we just recently had, you had been asking for first hand, credible evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead (the reason for this whole thread in the first place lol). Somehow I never thought about Paul the Apostle.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

There's really no debate, even from secular historians, over who wrote I Corinthians (Paul), where it was written (Ephesus) or when it was written (53 AD, merely 20 years after Christ's death). If you're looking for a credible eye witness account where someone says "Yes, I personally saw Jesus rise from the dead." I don't think you can beat Paul.

If someone doesn't want to accept it because it's a strictly supernatural claim, that's understandable (though if you reject the supernatural outright, why ask for evidence lol), but I don't really see how anyone could argue that's it's not credible, widely accepted, first hand evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

@UltimatePokemonExpert
I can't speak for everyone who's posted here, but I can speak for myself. I'm not concerned with converting anybody here. From my point of view, I'm just presenting what evidence I know of, and looking at what evidence others present (or evidence not presented if we're talking about marioguy). I for one have learned a lot. The scripture in hide tags for example, I didn't realize that was such an excellent proof that Jesus had risen from the dead before this thread.

 

[Firebrand]

Are you serious? You said the exact same things about the Qu'ran. I only changed one word in your post.

When was the Bible written anyway? I heard it was written several hundred years after Jesus died.

The bible wasn't written in one sitting. Its a compilation of books that were put together over a period of many years. In a sense you are correct, because the bible as we know it was not created amd established as we know it today until the (I think) Nicean council.

The bible cannot be disproved by science its called religion we are free to believe what we want to. case closed

Contribution noted.

While there is historical, documented evidence Jesus lived amd died (a Roman census and an accout by the scholar Joseph of Aramathea) there is no hard evidence outside of religiois texts. And ya know... Thats the way it should be. Because if we know... Then its not faith.

Atheist with a catholic school education ftw.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

From Josephus to Joseph of Arimathea

and hello TFP. Glad to see you joined us!

[edit]
Also, ebilly99, I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but directly concerning the discussion we just recently had, you had been asking for first hand, credible evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead (the reason for this whole thread in the first place lol). Somehow I never thought about Paul the Apostle.

Glad to be back! I should have just pointed out long ago that people were ignoring sources (or misconstruing them). Instead, I got bogged down with some things, and the OP retired. (BTW, does anyone know if "OP" can mean "original poster"?) I think I'll still need to talk to him about the source for something he said, but anyway.

Oh, and don't feel bad; I totally forgot Paul myself. I started by planning to prominently feature his testimony on the first page, yet I got sidetracked.

You've been doing a spectacular job debating while I've been gone. However, there is one thing I'd like to gently point out. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is:

he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold

Idunno if anybody told you, but... you look really silly when you say something about a text without reading the text in question first.

In the interest of carefulness, the above version of the text of that passage (the Testimonium Flavium) is not the one that should be cited.

Let me quote what historian Paul L. Maier said in his excellent book First Easter:

“Some Jewish sources treat the matter neutrally. One of the earliest and most authoritative historians of this age was Josephus, whose celebrated reference to Jesus in Antiquities xviii, 3, 3, states, in part, ‘He was the Christ… for he appeared to them alive again on the third day.’ Since it is extremely unlikely that any Jew could have written this statement, it is properly regarded as an early Christian interpolation today. In 1972, however, Professor Scholmo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his finding of an Arabic manuscript with a differing and perhaps original version of this passage, which states, ‘His disciples… reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah….’ This is language a Jew might have written with less difficulty, but what no one has yet pointed out is the remarkable fact that Josephus does not seek to scotch the resurrection claim by any information at his disposal that Jesus’ body still lay in its grave. Certainly this is an argument from silence, but the silence is especially eloquent in view of Josephus’ known habit of roasting false Messiahs elsewhere in his books.”
(From page 116)

This is important, and I think it best to conclude that that passage has had several parts inserted by Christians. I believe it is most likely that he did refer to Jesus in this passage, but care should be taken.

This webpage contains some good information from an expert historian. (Skeptics: read!)

Both the Qu'ran and the Bible claim that they are from God. What makes one more valid than the other?

You seem to be forgetting that books don't have to be from God to be reliable. I am not telling you "Believe the Bible is from God; that's how you can know Jesus came back from the dead." I believe the Bible is from God, but I don't attempt to convince anyone of that before I convince them that Jesus came back from the dead.
In my first post I made this clear:

Spoiler: From my first post

1. The Bible is not a source.
   This is often used to dismiss any value the biblical documents might have as evidence. This of course, is ridiculous. British historian A. N. Sherwin White points out that Roman historians are quite confident of the accuracy of the book of Acts, even in matters of detail. Liberal scholar John. A. T. Robinson similarly comments:
   
   “I have long been convinced that John contains primitive and reliable historical tradition, and that conviction has been reinforced by numerous studies in recent years.”
   (Redating the New Testament, page 9)
   
   I could go on, perhaps include a few great statements about the Old Testament. But it is at this point that I want to go on the record to point out what the skeptics have correct. The Bible is not A source. It is multiple sources. In historical matters, one cannot simply find something that appears contradictory between (for example) Matthew and John, then proclaim them both unreliable. By focusing on the way these documents are bound together in one volume, they miss the multiple reports from different authors. This brings me to my second point:
   
2. The Bible was written by humans.
   This is often used in response to the view that the Bible is inspired by God. I believe it is inspired by God, but I do not expect skeptics to believe this before they believe Jesus came back from the dead. In any case, of course the books of the Bible were written by humans! One cannot have it both ways. If the books of the Bible were written by human, then let them be judged as books written by humans. To dismiss them because of the flimsiest of supposed contradictions and errors is unsound. No works written by humans are treated in such a way. Pointing out a minor error in one book of the Bible might make sense as a critique of inerrancy. But it is a horrible critique of the general reliability of these books.

With those things in mind, I will respond to your points. Keep in mind that I am not citing the Bible as though you should already believe it is from God. It is a set of documents from ancient times, which can be examined with the tools of critical history.

The major problem that most people forget is the avagage lifespan of people without modern meds is 30 years. That means the only ones alive during jesus would have been children. (And the old crazy people)

You need to provide a source that lifespan is that low in all societies "without modern meds." Until you do so, that remains a baseless claim.

Yeah, I will give you that (And pauls testimony may be the only one that can be verified) However now the problem arises that in 70 ad Mark is written. How many people (Other then babys at the time) would have still been alive from jesus till the first gospel

To sorta carry over what I said to the previous point, average lifespan cannot be used to declare that some people could not have lived long enough to be eyewitnesses. It can only declare such to be unlikely. That changes nothing in Paul's case. And, it is possible that the gospels were written earlier than most critics believe they were written. John A. T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament, did a great job of showing how little evidence there is for the late date placed on the book.

The bible wasn't written in one sitting. Its a compilation of books that were put together over a period of many years. In a sense you are correct, because the bible as we know it was not created amd established as we know it today until the (I think) Nicean council.

Contribution noted.

While there is historical, documented evidence Jesus lived amd died (a Roman census and an accout by the scholar Joseph of Aramathea) there is no hard evidence outside of religiois texts. And ya know... Thats the way it should be. Because if we know... Then its not faith.

Atheist with a catholic school education ftw.

Atheist with a catholic education for the partial win. It's good that you recognize that the Bible was not written all in one sitting, with many portions of it written centuries B.C., and the New Testament written before A.D. 100. However, the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture. This is alleged in sensationalist works like Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

Also, I don't think there are census records of Jesus of Nazareth, nor do I feel that such records are necessary for anyone to believe. Not everything from the past has come down to us, but we still know plenty about history.

And I don't think Joseph of Arimathea wrote an account. You may be thinking of Flavius Josephus. Instead, Joseph of Arimathea gave Jesus a burial. The fact that the gospels say that this man, whom they record was a member of the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus, had the courage to give Jesus a burial in his tomb means this can be considered historical. If they were embellishing, maybe Peter would have been said to be bold enough to do so. But instead, Joseph used his tomb to bury Jesus.

Therefore, when the early Christians were proclaiming that Jesus had come back from the dead, people knew where He was buried and could go check to see if there was still anyone in the tomb.

 

[Firebrand]

Oh, yes, it was Josephus. Thank you for correcting me. It's tough to keep some names straight when they're so similar. I had the same problem with the councils. I think its supposed to be Vatican 1 that the Scriptures were solidified as we know them today. The apocryphal texts, like the gospel of thomas (is it thomas) that deals with the infancy narrative, were omitted for various reasons. However, its been about a year and a half since I had to learn that. Can someone check my facts?

And if memory serves, josephus's (rather brief) account says that a group of Jews were following the teachings of a rabi who was crucified, a Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Sadib]

My first post in this topic was asking if anyone found any proof, and everyone said no. Has anyone found any proof yet?