It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence for the resurrection

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?


Points for unbelievers to consider and think about….


(1) Jesus was sentenced to death; the Roman soldiers had probably carried out hundreds of such executions. It just doesn’t seem likely, that they would not have known, if Jesus were still alive.


(2) Why would the disciples go to so much trouble, involving persecution, torture and death, during which time they never once renounced the fact that Jesus, rose from the dead?


(3) How were the disciples even able to convert thousands of followers to this truth, if Jesus had not indeed risen and appeared to large crowds of people?


(4) How could only 12 disciples pull of such an amazing hoax?


(5) How can you explain the empty tomb?


(6) How could the disciples possibly steal the body of Christ, when it was heavily guarded by Roman soldiers, who were trained to kill?


(7) If it was an elaborate hoax, then why have woman as the first eye witnesses, when it was well known at that time, that a woman’s testimony in court, was not acceptable.


(8) Could the accounts of large crowds be mass hallucinations? multiple hallucinations, just doesn’t appear to be a credible explanationin, in light of how we currently understand this type of experience..


(9) Many of the disciples did not believe the woman’s testimonies, but only came to believe much later, after they claimed to have witnessed Jesus resurrection for themselves.



Here is an excellent debate/discussion, providing further evidence to consider for the resurrection





- JC




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
Points for unbelievers to consider and think about….



So in other words, the bible is true because of some other stuff written in the bible?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
You're assuming the story of Jesus really happened without any historical fact attached to it.

What's your point again?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
(1) Jesus was sentenced to death; the Roman soldiers had probably carried out hundreds of such executions. It just doesn’t seem likely, that they would not have known, if Jesus were still alive.


Why didn't any of the historians at the time Jesus lived write about his execution if it really happened?



(2) Why would the disciples go to so much trouble, involving persecution, torture and death, during which time they never once renounced the fact that Jesus, rose from the dead?


Since I assume your argument is "why would the desciples go through such heartache to die for a lie?" I guess that makes Islam true for what they did on 9/11.


(3) How were the disciples even able to convert thousands of followers to this truth, if Jesus had not indeed risen and appeared to large crowds of people?


There is a difference between one person claiming there were 500+ witness' and 500+ witness' claiming they saw the resurrection. Can you please identify any of these witness' outside the desciples and Jesus' family?



(4) How could only 12 disciples pull of such an amazing hoax?


Because people are gullbile and will believe anything you tell them.


(5) How can you explain the empty tomb?


Most Christians of the day didn't believe in a literal resurrection, so the empty tomb point is moot.


(6) How could the disciples possibly steal the body of Christ, when it was heavily guarded by Roman soldiers, who were trained to kill?


You're aware that if a Roman soldier fell asleep during those days, he'd be executed right? I find it very unlikely that this guard was put to sleep and a few people rolled a big boulder out of the way to steal Jesus' body.


(8) Could the accounts of large crowds be mass hallucinations? multiple hallucinations, just doesn’t appear to be a credible explanationin, in light of how we currently understand this type of experience..


Stephen Parr puts this nicely:


Ask 500 Catholics after Mass if they have received the real body and blood of Jesus and they will say yes. Are they hallucinating? No. Does this mean a non-Catholic would have seen the real body and blood of Jesus during Mass? No. What people say they have seen is conditioned by what they want to say they have seen. Talk of 'hallucinations' is beside the point.


It's not necessary for people to have actually seen the resurrection, only that they believe it.


(9) Many of the disciples did not believe the woman’s testimonies, but only came to believe much later, after they claimed to have witnessed Jesus resurrection for themselves.


Jesus only appeared to his desciples, how convenient.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AxlJones
You're assuming the story of Jesus really happened without any historical fact attached to it.

What's your point again?


Actually, there are many references. Josephus notes that the Jews crucified the on called Jesus who claimed to be their savior.

(63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.

This is one of many references. Note that Josephus was one of the ruling class of priests in Israel. He was also tied to the Romans as a historian. It's not likely he would have lied, as he had no motivation to lie. If anything, he had every reason to cover over the story and keep it from reflecting badly on the ruling Jews. Not the case. He was accurate to the story and witness to it. As it appears, he was highly affected by the truth of it. Being familiar with scripture, he likely recognized the fulfillment of divine revelation.


edit on 15-12-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Josephus was born in 37 AD, Jesus died in 33 AD respectively. How can he be a witness to an event when he wasn't born yet?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


The Roman legionaries were that worlds version of special forces or green berets, if they wanted you dead, they new how to make you that way. The Romans soldiers knew where your heart was located, it was common practice when holding field executions they would force you down on your knees and them drive their gladius downward into your back and through your heart.

When they stabbed you with a spear or javlin, they twisted the spear so that the speartip would sever veins and arteries so that you died quickly.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Josephus was born in 37 AD, Jesus died in 33 AD respectively. How can he be a witness to an event when he wasn't born yet?



Word travels fast. Do you think that when Josephus was a child growing up that he would not hear stories about Jesus who healed thousands, raised the dead, fed 5 thousand people with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread, die don the cross for mans sins and resurrected 3 days later? There were tens of thousands of people that witnessed his miracles and as many believed in him as the messiah as saw his miracles.

So many people choose to neglect and reject the testimony of the people who saw these things when the truth of the matter is, if this was all lies then christianity would have faded into obscurity and been forgotten centuries ago. The reason it hasn't been forgotten? Because the men who formed the first church passed on what they saw to future generations.

We know of Alexander the Great, and of Homer and Plato, Socrates and Euripides and Pythagorus. Why? Because they left things behind and taught people things that seared the memory of them into men's minds and because some dusty old tomes and writings were left behind of them. It's the same principle.

Also, do you really think men would be willing to throw away their lives for a lie? When the romans were flushing out christians, how they discovered them was they gave them the choice to worship the romans gods and recite a verbal rejection of Jesus the Christ, if they couldn't do it then they were christians and Vespasian and Nero both had a softspot for murdering christians because it gave them pleasure to hear their death screams while they were burned at the stake.

Could you hold to your convictions if someone said they were going to behead you, or burn you at the stake, or hang on you a cross? Those men and women did even to death knowing full well what horrors were in store for them by refusing to reject Christ. People don;t think of this though when they try to say Jesus was a lie or made up or some other crap. They totally disregard the past in their quest to prove themselves in their own vanity in what they want to believe is "right".
edit on 15-12-2011 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Exactly! The Jewish leadership of the day was smart and influential. If the death and resurrection of Jesus had not gone down as the Gospels stated, it would have been quickly debunked, the Gospels would likely never have been written, and the whole affair would at best be a footnote in history. That Christianity survived and prospered proves the truth, along with the other points made by the OP.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Josephus was born in 37 AD, Jesus died in 33 AD respectively. How can he be a witness to an event when he wasn't born yet?



My error. Looks like you are correct. I do agree with Lonewolf. He still had reason to refute the story, being a priest in the Jewish tradition. Since he clings to the story, he likely agreed with the mass of the population. This is sure evidence that the story existed in his early youth, just a few short years after the death of Jesus.
edit on 15-12-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I agree.



edit on 15-12-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Exactly! The Jewish leadership of the day was smart and influential. If the death and resurrection of Jesus had not gone down as the Gospels stated, it would have been quickly debunked, the Gospels would likely never have been written, and the whole affair would at best be a footnote in history. That Christianity survived and prospered proves the truth, along with the other points made by the OP.



This is also proof of the great deception God is supposed to send in the tribulation which also proves were in the tribulation. The numbers of believers is fading rapidly across the world. Theyre believing the lie that God/Jesus does not exist, instead they turn to aliens or pagan gods or to science and atheism. No matter how hard we shout and try to warn them its like their ears are gummed up with molasses. The process of weeding the goats from the sheep has already begun.

Another way to prove theyre believing the lie of the great deception, is that even the prophets who lived 2300+ years ago prophecied of these times to a match and even with their warnings the people still scoff.

Truly it is like the days of Noah where people were marrying and going about their ways totally oblivious to the destruction that was coming for them. History is repeating itself, we've come full circle.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 




Originally posted by Novastrike81
Why didn't any of the historians at the time Jesus lived write about his execution if it really happened?



They did! Josephus being but one example, and Paul the apostle, assuming you can count him as a historian.




Originally posted by Novastrike81
Since I assume your argument is "why would the desciples go through such heartache to die for a lie?" I guess that makes Islam true for what they did on 9/11.



I’m not sure what your point is…

The difference between the disciples, and those who supposedly carried out the attacks on 911, is that the disciples didn’t kill anyone for their belief’s, they were killed by others, because they refused to renounce their beliefs…big difference!




Originally posted by Novastrike81
There is a difference between one person claiming there were 500+ witness' and 500+ witness' claiming they saw the resurrection. Can you please identify any of these witness' outside the desciples and Jesus' family?



There is a number of accounts in the New Testament for this, go look and see. The main point behind this, is how could they convince a large number of people, who also later became disciples and taught the same teachings. You can’t just make people believe something, unless they witness it for themselves; the disciple’s early disbelief is proof of that fact.




Originally posted by Joecroft
(4) How could only 12 disciples pull of such an amazing hoax?



Originally posted by Novastrike81
Because people are gullbile and will believe anything you tell them.



IMO, people of that time were not as gullible as most people think. You can’t just make large numbers of people believe in a completely radical concept like the resurrection, unless of course, they actually witnessed it for themselves.




Originally posted by Novastrike81
Most Christians of the day didn't believe in a literal resurrection, so the empty tomb point is moot.



The empty tomb point is important, because the Roman authorities ordered it to be guarded by soldiers….see below…

As for, “Most Christians of the day didn't believe in a literal resurrection”, technically speaking, other than the disciples and other followers; there were no Christians, until after the resurrection took place.




Originally posted by Novastrike81
You're aware that if a Roman soldier fell asleep during those days, he'd be executed right? I find it very unlikely that this guard was put to sleep and a few people rolled a big boulder out of the way to steal Jesus' body.



Well according to Roman accounts, they were already aware of a rumor that Jesus might resurrect, within three days. So they placed Roman guards outside the tomb to make sure that such an event would not happen, or could not be faked. And low and behold the soldiers apparently fled because they were afraid of the Angels.

If it had been anyone else, they would have stayed and fought to the death, because of what you rightly pointed out above i.e. that they would be executed for leaving their posts. So what other possible reason would they have to flee the scene? Knowing full well, that they would be facing an execution, for leaving their posts.




Originally posted by Novastrike81
It's not necessary for people to have actually seen the resurrection, only that they believe it.



But this is my point, in that you can’t just believe something as radical as the resurrection. I don’t buy that people were that gullible in those times. Even the disciples were skeptical and wanted some kind of proof/evidence…and the rest, as they say, is history.




Originally posted by Novastrike81
Jesus only appeared to his desciples, how convenient.



Well, according to gospel accounts, Jesus appeared to large crowds on a few separate occasions.


- JC



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


The best proof for the resurrection is the explosion of Christianity in Jerusalem immediately after Christ's ascension. It would be really funny trying to get people to convert to Christianity in Jerusalem in the first century when all the people had to do was walk to the tomb and they could if it were empty of not.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 



Jesus only appeared to his desciples, how convenient.


The Bible doesn't even teach that, what website do you get this nonsense from?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



There is a number of accounts in the New Testament for this, go look and see. The main point behind this, is how could they convince a large number of people, who also later became disciples and taught the same teachings. You can’t just make people believe something, unless they witness it for themselves; the disciple’s early disbelief is proof of that fact.


And not to mention that Jesus's brothers didn't get on the bandwagon until after the resurrection.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



This is also proof of the great deception God is supposed to send in the tribulation which also proves were in the tribulation.


Dear Lord, stop telling people this on these forums!!! Gog/Magog must come before Daniel's 70th week, the rapture must happen before the start of the Tribulation as well. In Revelation chapter 1 Jesus HIMSELF says that the candlesticks are the churches. In Revelation chapter 4 when Christ is handed the sealed scroll for the first time from His Father, the candlesticks (churches) are in heaven worshiping the Lamb.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The best proof for the resurrection is the explosion of Christianity in Jerusalem immediately after Christ's ascension. It would be really funny trying to get people to convert to Christianity in Jerusalem in the first century when all the people had to do was walk to the tomb and they could if it were empty of not.



Excellent point!


And I would add that the Romans could have quite easily ordered the body to be found, and then dispelled any myths, by producing the said body.

I guess that’s hard to do though, when the body in question, is up and walking around lol



- JC



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


One of the best evidences is that Jesus's own brothers and mother worshiped Him as the Lord after He resurrected. I mean, I can't fathom what it would take for my siblings and parents to worship me as a sinless Son of God.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 






Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
The Roman legionaries were that worlds version of special forces or green berets, if they wanted you dead, they new how to make you that way. The Romans soldiers knew where your heart was located, it was common practice when holding field executions they would force you down on your knees and them drive their gladius downward into your back and through your heart.

When they stabbed you with a spear or javlin, they twisted the spear so that the speartip would sever veins and arteries so that you died quickly.



Yes, they were pretty proficient at what they did. This was their expertise and they carried out executions, with a military style precision, on a regular basis. All the more reason to believe that Jesus sentence was carried out to the letter.


- JC

edit on 16-12-2011 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join