Is there evidence of Jesus' ressurection?

[Remorph]

I studied this in biology. Sometimes RNA is replicated incorrectly and adds something else. For example : GCACCAG would turn into GCACGCAG because a C got in there.

Mutations can add or subtract information, as permitted by DNA. That is, we can't possibly grow a dog's ear, because our DNA would never allow it, even with mutation. It wouldn't be possible for horses to have eagles wings. I'm sorry for not being clear, but THIS is what I meant when I said mutations do not add information.

 

[Sadib]

Mutations can add or subtract information, as permitted by DNA. That is, we can't possibly grow a dog's ear, because our DNA would never allow it, even with mutation. It wouldn't be possible for horses to have eagles wings. I'm sorry for not being clear, but THIS is what I meant when I said mutations do not add information.

Big steps in evolution take multiple generations to occur.

 

[Remorph]

Big steps in evolution take multiple generations to occur.

Did we really get here by evolution? If evolution existed, then what started the earth? The big bang? That's spontaneous generation.

 

[Generic Pokemon Trainer]

Dude, the Romans weren't out to get Jesus. The only reason the Romans were involved, was because the hypocritical Pharisees wanted Jesus dead. And according to Roman rules there, Romans had to get involved with capital offences.

The Romans in general were fine with Christianity. Then, the Romans started attacking Christians around Nero's time. And it went back and forth, depending on the ruler, with attacks becoming more infrequent.

Also, Pontius Pillate saw nothing wrong with Jesus. He KNEW he was innocent, but being the cowardly sponge he is, he went ahead with it anyway, because he didn't want to be blamed for an uprising by the Jews. And even if Pilate let Jesus go, Jesus STILL would have died, because it was part of God's plan.

The Romans weren't the major players in the plan to kill Jesus. But yes, Jesus came to die. The Romans where kind of in between with Jews and Christians, they knew they couldn't move to silence them or else they would have a major rebellion on their hands eg. The Jewish Rebellion in AD 70

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

The Talmud makes refferences to sorcerers being hung and stoned, being boiled in piss ect. Not exactly affirming Jesus. (Considering it is 4th century it is nul and void)

To start with, that's one more misrepresentation of my argument. I am not claiming that the Jews who wrote the Talmud were in favor of Jesus. That would be silly. The relevant fact about their charge that He "practised sorcery" is that they are here admitting that He did supernatural things.

And, no, fourth century documents are not null and void. Ask a historian about sources used for other things in history, and you'll find out that many trustworthy sources were made centuries after the things they report (i.e., the biographies of Alexander the Great).

Finally, the passage I quoted is from the Mishnah. Here's what Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia says about the Mishnah:

Mishnah, first part of the Talmud, a codification of the oral law of the Old Testament and of the political and civil laws of the Jews. It was compiled and edited (orally) in the last quarter of the 2nd century ad or the first quarter of the 3rd century by Rabbi Judah (circa 135-c. 220), known as ha-Kadosh (Hebrew, “the Saint”) or ha-Nasi (Hebrew, “the Prince” or “the Patriarch”), but generally known to devout Jews simply as “Rabbi.”

So this source is actually quite early, especially given the fact that it was based on earlier material still.

The women also didn't recognize Jesus at first either. Can you say imposter.

Do you even read the biblical sources you are criticizing? Only one woman failed to recognize Jesus when He appeared. In John 20:11-17, Mary Magdalene was weeping when Jesus appeared to her, which could easily account for her temporary failure to recognize Him. The only other people who didn't immediately recognize Him were the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31). If these were the only eyewitnesses, the idea of someone pretending to be a resurrected Jesus might be sensible. However, not only is there good reason why Mary Magdalene might not immediately recognize Him, you also failed to account for "the other Mary" who saw Him (Matthew 28:9-10). And that does nothing to dismiss other eyewitnesses like James and Thomas.

I believe Paul wanted the peace that those he killed had and beleived hard enough to create Sycosomatic Blindness.

This is called special pleading. You have no evidence that Paul had any such deep desire. As a matter of fact, the fact that he put Christians in jail (etc.), likely indicates that quite the opposite is the case. I also want to see a source for whether such psychosomatic blindness is even possible.

Okay then. Show your evidence. The Bible counts as exclusionary evidence, so you can't use that.

The Bible is the primary source for studying the historical Jesus, so you can't just exclude it because you don't like it. As I've shown, there's plenty in it to indicate historical authenticity.

 

[Remorph]

The Bible is the primary source for studying the historical Jesus, so you can't just exclude it because you don't like it. As I've shown, there's plenty in it to indicate historical authenticity.[/QUOTE]

Gosh, you made me NOT feel alone, with all the evolutionists.

 

[Sadib]

Let's close this topic now. It's clear now that the Bible is the only evidence.

 

[Remorph]

Let's close this topic now. It's clear now that the Bible is the only evidence.

We're not saying the Bible is the only evidence ever, we are saying that the Bible is a valid source of evidence, at the very least, historically.

 

[Megaton666]

We're not saying the Bible is the only evidence ever, we are saying that the Bible is a valid source of evidence, at the very least, historically.

No it's not.

 

[Remorph]

No it's not.

And how is it not? Give me as many examples as you can of how it's not historically not correct.

 

[Megaton666]

And how is it not? Give me as many examples as you can of how it's not historically not correct.

Whoopie! I'm going to enjoy the hell out of this.

1. It claims the Earth is 6000 years old, while in actuallity it's 4,545,000,000 years old.
2. It claims the universe was created in 6 days.
3. It claims there is a "firmament" which seperates the Earth for the "Water above it".
4. It claims that rabbits chew cud.
5. It claims the Earth was flooded, even though there's no geological evidence of said flood.
6. It claims man is made of clay and woman is made out of a mutilated rib.
7. It claims man is made in God's image while at the same time not allowing man to know what God looks like.
8. It claims the Earth has 4 corners, implying it's flat.
9. It claims that an all knowing god DIDN'T know his creations would eat the fruit he told them not to eat.
10. It has a talking snake.

And those are just some things off the top of my head.

 

[Remorph]

Whoopie! I'm going to enjoy the hell out of this.

1. It claims the Earth is 6000 years old, while in actuallity it's 4,545,000,000 years old.
2. It claims the universe was created in 6 days.
3. It claims there is a "firmament" which seperates the Earth for the "Water above it".
4. It claims that rabbits chew cud.
5. It claims the Earth was flooded, even though there's no geological evidence of said flood.
6. It claims man is made of clay and woman is made out of a mutilated rib.
7. It claims man is made in God's image while at the same time not allowing man to know what God looks like.
8. It claims the Earth has 4 corners, implying it's flat.
9. It claims that an all knowing god DIDN'T know his creations would eat the fruit he told them not to eat.
10. It has a talking snake.

And those are just some things off the top of my head.

1. You can't prove it. The crap we use to date the earth doesn't work that far back.
2. Of course, neither of us can prove that, it's a matter of faith.
3. You can interpret this as heaven.
4. Rabbits eat, partially digest their food, then they go #2. Then they eat that, and finish digestion. That's chewing the cud.
5. Almost every culture has a story of a worldwide flood, and that's too coincidental. Also, there is multiple evidences of a huge catastrophe, which could be the flood.
6. God created the world, he can sure as heck do this.
7. We were created resembling God, not looking exactly like God. That;s not even possible, since God is spirit. We can't literally look like god.
8. The Bible uses a lot of figurative language. This phrase basically means the whole earth. Come on, quite a few people use this phrase. Anyone could tell you that.
9. God did know, because he is omnipotent. apparently, you read the passage wrong. You will have to read that passage to me, dude. This one's on hold.
10. If you are even familiar with the story, then you should remember the snake was satan in disguise.

With the exception of 9, which YOU have to prove, I have refuted every claim.

 

[Megaton666]

1. You can't prove it. The crap we use to date the earth doesn't work that far back.
2. Of course, neither of us can prove that, it's a matter of faith.
3. You can interpret this as heaven.
4. Rabbits eat, partially digest their food, then they go #2. Then they eat that, and finish digestion. That's chewing the cud.
5. Almost every culture has a story of a worldwide flood, and that's too coincidental. Also, there is multiple evidences of a huge catastrophe, which could be the flood.
6. God created the world, he can sure as heck do this.
7. That is because we are sinful, and god being perfect, we would die looking at him.
8. The Bible uses a lot of figurative language. This phrase basically means the whole earth. Come on, quite a few people use this phrase. Anyone could tell you that.
9. God did know, because he is omnipotent. apparently, you read the passage wrong. You will have to read that passage to me, dude. This one's on hold.
10. If you are even familiar with the story, then you should remember the snake was satan in disguise.

With the exception of 9, which YOU have to prove, I have refuted every claim.

1. Study science. Seriously.
2. Again, study the damn science.
3. So would you say God and the angels are fish?
4. Rabbits, like most species, eat their feces at times of famine. And regardless, coprophagia doesn't count as chewing cud. Chewing cud is when an animal has several stomaches and needs to regurgitate in order to pass the food through all of them. Not to mention, the bible says rabbits chew cud because that's one of the criteria for an animal to be kosher. And the kosher system was designed so that humans don't eat coprophagian animals.
5. All cultures have stories of a flood because the planet's surface is mostly aquatic, and they needed to explain it.
6. But evidently, I'm not made of clay.
7. God didn't want humans to know what he looked like, which is ridiculous considering we supposidly look just like him.
8. It's not figuritive. The reason it's a figure of speech today is because it's in the bible.
9. the word you're looking for is "omniscient". and why did God need to look for Adam? And why was he surprised when he found out they ate the fruit?
10. I am familiar with the story, but apearantly you're not. There's no mention of Satan, probably because the concept of Satan was thought of centuries after genesis was written.

 

[Remorph]

1,2: I do study science. And you can't prove it. Show me the proof.
3: No. I wouldn't.
4.Actually, many of the ancients put the rabbit in the same category as the coprophagians.
5. Or maybe the earth is mostly aquatic because of the flood.
6. Duh. The clay turned into human flesh. God can do that. And since you cannot possibly prove god doesn't exist, there is nothing you can do.
7.Again with the literalism. I said we were made to RESEMBLE god, not literally look like god. And God is a spirit. Looking just like god is impossible.
8. You don't seem to understand that lots of the bible had symbolism.
9. Yes. Thank you for the correction. God wanst looking for adam. God was walking in the garden. Adam hid. God knew what adam did the whole time. God wasn't suprised. It never said god was surprised.
10. Actually, the snake WAS satan. If the world was perfect, and Saran rebelled against God, it had to be him. That, and everyone universally agress that satan was the tempter.

 

[GaZsTiC]

And you can't prove it. Show me the proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

How can you study science and not know that for years scientists have been able to accurately measure the time since the universe began?

 

[Megaton666]

1,2: I do study science. And you can't prove it. Show me the proof.
3: No. I wouldn't.
4.Actually, many of the ancients put the rabbit in the same category as the coprophagians.
5. Or maybe the earth is mostly aquatic because of the flood.
6. Duh. The clay turned into human flesh. God can do that. And since you cannot possibly prove god doesn't exist, there is nothing you can do.
7.Again with the literalism. I said we were made to RESEMBLE god, not literally look like god. And God is a spirit. Looking just like god is impossible.
8. You don't seem to understand that lots of the bible had symbolism.
9. Yes. Thank you for the correction. God wanst looking for adam. God was walking in the garden. Adam hid. God knew what adam did the whole time. God wasn't suprised. It never said god was surprised.
10. Actually, the snake WAS satan. If the world was perfect, and Saran rebelled against God, it had to be him. That, and everyone universally agress that satan was the tempter.

1,2. Various methods of radiometric dating.
3. Then the firmament isn't a metaophore for heaven.
4. Rabbits still don't chew cud.
5. Actually, the flood is, and was, impossible. Where did all the water come from? Where did it go? How could a tiny ark contain every species on the planet. Where did Noah store food? How did he keep it fresh? Where did he store the fish? How could every species repopulate when it was clearly incest? Why flood the earth at all, and why Make an ark? If god is omnipotent, he could just give all the evil people magic heart attacks, or just re-create every species after the flood.
6. Well, I believe it was turned to flesh via magic pixies. You have your unsubstanciated hypothesis and I have mine. Not to mention, we already know how humans came to be. It's called evolution.
7. The bible says "In his image".
8. No, it didn't have symbolism, nor should it. When writing a document that's meant to be understood by all, using complex metaphores negates your purpose.
9. Read the bible. He was looking for him. He asked him where he is. And he asked Adam why he was hiding his genitals.
10. NO! The snake was NOT Satan! The idea that the snake was Satan is a purely christian one, and doesn't exist in Judaism (You know, that religion that actually studied the bible). The reason it's a snake is because, In Judaism, snakes are viewed as deceitful and sneaky.

 

[Psykicko]

Well granted I only read the first page of this thread, noticed there were 58 pages and consequently skipped to the last page, but I was rather pleased that this thread didn't seem to be near approaching a flame war, but I think Megaton666 and Remorph are dangerously close to it.

Anyways, here are my two cents:
You two aren't making any progress by simply flinging these 10 points back and forth at each other. To be honest, by the look of things, the best solution for you two would be to agree to disagree, because you're both just being stubborn. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe, and no matter how much another person's beliefs may infuriate you because you KNOW that deep down inside you are speaking the truth and the other person's beliefs are WRONG, all you will end up expressing when you try to refute them is tactless psychological brutality.

Hey, take a look at my sig. I'm a spritualist/pagan, and I'm also a scientist by nature. I'm looking at the stuff that both of you are writing and thinking 'yep, they're both right there, Megaton is wrong there, Remorph is wrong there, but he's right here and he's right there...' etc, but I'm not about to waste my time trying to explain why because I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and you should be comfortable with your own.

 

[darkcharizard58]

Why did Jesus get put into that tomb. He was a criminal and a blasphemer. The Religious Temple Hated him so why put him into a tomb by himself.

They didnt. Joseph of Arimethea donatd his own tomb for him. He was rich and believed in Jesus the Phariseesn had nothing to do with Jesus's burial

 

[Sadib]

Did we really get here by evolution? If evolution existed, then what started the earth? The big bang? That's spontaneous generation.

God of course.

We're not saying the Bible is the only evidence ever, we are saying that the Bible is a valid source of evidence, at the very least, historically.

I don't think anyone showed any other evidence.

 

[ebilly99]

They didnt. Joseph of Arimethea donatd his own tomb for him. He was rich and believed in Jesus the Phariseesn had nothing to do with Jesus's burial

Joseph the Pharisie did? May I ask why he would do this? Seems strange to me that the same guy who voted to kill jesus would then give up his tomb