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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
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 they that Jesus sentence was carried out to the letter.


- JC


Either way Jesus was dead before he went into that tomb.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.



I know what you mean. It’s like one minute their down in the dumps missing Jesus, and then the next their roaming around like men/woman possessed, (by the Holy Spirit lol) and preaching that Jesus had risen.


People (not you) fail to realize just how important the resurrection is/was, in kick starting the disciples beliefs into action and into preaching the word.


I mean, if your savior whom you believed in and in whom you had spent many hours and days with, had just been killed, you wouldn’t in all seriousness, have the strength to continue on preaching…unless…



- JC


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



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Before I do the OP list, let me say that I am an agnostic, and so was invited to comment as a non-believer. My point in reciting all that follows is not to refute the resurrection of Jesus, but simply to point out that, like religious claims generally, it is accepted chiefly on faith.

As an agnostic, my view is that if you believe Jesus rose from the dead, then that's fine. To claim that there is some impersonally valid reason why I should believe it, however, is another matter.

To the list:

(1) Romans killed Jesus Yes, if Jesus lived at all, then he was killed by Romans.

(2) Martyred eyewitnesses? There is no contemporary account of anybody in the aposotlic generation being killed after declining an offer to renounce their faith. We have Pliny's letter in the early Second Century that acquital by renunciation had been offered earlier, during his professional lifetime. That would be about two generations after the death of Jesus. Any witnesses were dead by then.

(3) Crowd sightings and mass conversion We really don't know how many people were ever converted in Jerusalem. The place was sacked in 70 CE. The most conspicuously successful apostle was Paul, who avoided Jerusalem almost entirely after he took up Christianity. Paul's converts saw Paul, not the risen Jesus. The answer to your question, then, is whatever Paul did. Apparently, that was to talk, perform miracles, and then write letters.

At the very beginning, Jesus was supposedly coming back during the apostolic generation. The claim was that if you sign up, then you won't die. Other inducements would be needed to get the movement into the Second Century. However, the Jewish idea of a bodily afterlife would plausibly have appealed to many pagans, especially if the men could keep their foreskins and both sexes could eat pork, even if the delivery date became ever more vague as time went on.

(4) Hoax? I'm pretty sure that Paul believed what he was saying. Paul wouldn't know one way or the other, but he had an opinion, and aggressively advocated it. No hoax there.

(5) What empty tomb? After a year, a body would be reduced to a disarticulated skeleton. Those bones would then be removed in the ordinary course of funerary practices. We have no evidence of what any Jesus movement taught within a decade of Jesus' death. The tomb was in fact empty when Paul wrote, which was before any Gospel was written.

(6) What Roman guards? Even the Gospels don't unambiguously claim that those were Roman soldiers, and not all the Gospels have any guard posted at all. In Matthew 28: 11 ff., the guards are depicted as reporting to the Temple authorities and accepting a bribe to lie about what they saw. The Gospel doesn't say whether that was their first experience of bribery. Roman soldiers reported to Roman officers, not to Temple authorities. The Temple had its own "rent-a-cops."

(7) Women's testimony What Christian eyewitness testified to this in court? Anyway, the Gospels have the empty tomb inspected by male apostles, for whatever that's worth.

(8) Collective hallucination What type of experience would that be? Maybe you have read reports about Fatima, in the Twentieth Century. The sun didn't actually collide with the Earth, nor did the Earth otherwise perturb its orbit, but lots of folk said they saw those very things, all of them gathered in the same place at the same time.

The only canonical reference to a mass appearance of the risen Jesus which I recall is a remark by Paul, who doesn't say that he witnessed that event himself. Personally, I think he's confusing that with the Pentecost, which had hundreds of people on hand, but Jesus had already ascended by then.

For small group hallucinations, googlebing the "Philip experiment" in any of its many variations, or compare with modern seances.

(9) Disciples' initial disbelief OK. The story improved with time. That seems plausible.
-
edit on 16-12-2011 by eight bits because: typoes and belated clarification



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
He was not resurrected because HE DID NOT DIE.

Yes, they did crucify someone, but it could be that this someone was not Jesus.

Jesus prayed to God to SAVE HIM:


Abba, Father, he said, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will. - Mark, 14:36


And God SAVED HIM:


During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. - Hebrews 5:7



BTW, what is this about him praying with loud cries and tears?

It refers to the prayer (above) Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane.
How did he pray then? Did he get on his knees, palms together etc. like christians do today?

No:


Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.


He prostrated, with his head on the ground ... now who prays like that today?


Although the books of the New Testament have been heavily modified, to try and make Jesus to something he was not, there are still bits and pieces of truth left - with careful examination one can find them.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
So you are saying the bible was rewritten except for things you want to believe?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
So you are saying the bible was rewritten except for things you want to believe?


Lol. No. But you examine this by using references and other sources - which are either in accordance with it or not.

So, for example if all the prophets for thousands of years preach one thing, and then in the new testament you have statements which are diametrically different - then it stands to reason that those statements have to be examined.

Example: If for thousands of years the believers would offer a sacrifice in the form of an animal for the forgiveness of their sins, and they were all believers including Prophets, then why is there a need after a time to have a man (or God) be killed so that the sins can be forgiven?
Does that mean, all those who lived before are lost, because they could not possibly believe in the man/God that had to die for their sins, or does it mean sins can be forgiven even without the man/God sacrifice?

Further more: If the Old Testament clearly states multiple times that "no one shall bare the sins of another" - then how is this reconcilable with the "death" of Jesus for "our sins"?

The subject is too broad to be discussed here, and there have been many works written about it - but the Kern of the matter is that: people are born sinless - with a free will - so, there is no need for someone to die for their sins, and ultimately, according to the Old Testament, this would also be futile, since no one can bare the sins of another (it would also be UNJUST).
Adam was forgiven for his error, there is no original sin, thus there is also no need for ultimate sacrifice - leading to conclusion that such a construction, as is to be found in todays new testament books about the "resurrection" was indeed missing from older manuscripts - the manuscript of Mark (as the oldest of the four Gospels) being an example, where entire endings are different or completely missing. It was an idea strongly developed by Paul - who was then the strongest influence to all Gospel writers - but the sources showing the original disciples being opposed to Paul, suggests that he was indeed creating ideas which were untrue.
Ultimately, it was HIS ideas that prevailed - and the result is todays christinaity, which is far far away from what the original disciples believed.
edit on 16/12/2011 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Your post title had the word "Evidence" in it.
Then you made this statement:



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.


Care to show your evidence here? Roman records of the time period, Roman court documents detailing the case against the man?

Then you end with a youtube video, one of the worst possible way to prove a point in this form anyway, and preclude it with this:



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


So, can we see this evidence you say you have?

The New Testament does not constitute evidence.
edit on 12/16/11 by autowrench because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by 547000
So you are saying the bible was rewritten except for things you want to believe?


Lol. No. But you examine this by using references and other sources - which are either in accordance with it or not.

So, for example if all the prophets for thousands of years preach one thing, and then in the new testament you have statements which are diametrically different - then it stands to reason that those statements have to be examined.

Example: If for thousands of years the believers would offer a sacrifice in the form of an animal for the forgiveness of their sins, and they were all believers including Prophets, then why is there a need after a time to have a man (or God) be killed so that the sins can be forgiven?
Does that mean, all those who lived before are lost, because they could not possibly believe in the man/God that had to die for their sins, or does it mean sins can be forgiven even without the man/God sacrifice?

Further more: If the Old Testament clearly states multiple times that "no one shall bare the sins of another" - then how is this reconcilable with the "death" of Jesus for "our sins"?

The subject is too broad to be discussed here, and there have been many works written about it - but the Kern of the matter is that: people are born sinless - with a free will - so, there is no need for someone to die for their sins, and ultimately, according to the Old Testament, this would also be futile, since no one can bare the sins of another (it would also be UNJUST).
Adam was forgiven for his error, there is no original sin, thus there is also no need for ultimate sacrifice - leading to conclusion that such a construction, as is to be found in todays new testament books about the "resurrection" was indeed missing from older manuscripts - the manuscript of Mark (as the oldest of the four Gospels) being an example, where entire endings are different or completely missing. It was an idea strongly developed by Paul - who was then the strongest influence to all Gospel writers - but the sources showing the original disciples being opposed to Paul, suggests that he was indeed creating ideas which were untrue.
Ultimately, it was HIS ideas that prevailed - and the result is todays christinaity, which is far far away from what the original disciples believed.
edit on 16/12/2011 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


The old testament completely foreshadows the new testament. Here is just a few examples. The OT was just a chapter of the full work of God.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 






Originally posted by autowrench
Your post title had the word "Evidence" in it.
Then you made this statement:




Originally posted by Joecroft
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.




Originally posted by autowrench
Care to show your evidence here? Roman records of the time period, Roman court documents detailing the case against the man?



Josephus and a number of other Jewish writings called the Toledoth Jeshu” all admit to Jesus tomb being empty. The fact that there was a tomb, means that there must have been a death. The Babylonian Talmud also makes referrence to Jesus trail and execution. Also, and this may be debatable; the Romans did not keep records of executions.




Originally posted by autowrench

Then you end with a youtube video, one of the worst possible way to prove a point in this form anyway, and preclude it with this:



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



I think you need to take a deep breath and a step back for a moment. I couldn’t possibly provide every single piece of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, in just 1 post. And as for the video I posted, I simply wanted people to respond to the specific points raised within it.




Originally posted by autowrench
The New Testament does not constitute evidence.



Why not?

Most of Paul’s writing were private letters, which he probably never thought for one minute, would later become part of a New Testament book.


- JC



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Eight bits


Thank you for your post.


But

You seem to be forgetting something. From my previous thread “Ezekiel 28 ???”, you used very subtle and emotive attacking language, directed towards me, from page 2 onwards. You then made a dismissive claim, saying that most of the scholars were wrong, and when I asked you for evidence, you told me to go look for it!

Why would I want to have interactions with anyone, who has that type of conduct from past discussions? The point is, I don’t and I will not. So like I have already told you, you need to address my last post found here, before we have any further interactions on ATS.


- JC



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Joe

That's OK. You can't think of any answer to my objections. No worry.

Since my earlier post, I've watched the vid from the OP. There were two matters pertinent to the thread which came up in the video, which I'd like to comment upon. Both matters concern Paul, who Habermas and Flew agree is a crucial author. Me, too.

First

Habermas suggests that Paul received information about Jesus from the Apostles, before Paul taught his doctrine. Almost all scholars agree that Paul wrote Galatians, of which verses 1: 11-12 couldn't possibly be clearer:

Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul did confer with people in Jerusalem (Galatians 1: 18), three years after leaving Damascus for an interval of unspecified duration in Arabia and a return to Damascus (1: 17).

But even if it were three years after Jesus was placed in the tomb, that's two years after the tomb would have been emptied. And whenever the visit occurred, Paul says that he had formed his doctrine independently; he wasn't adopting what was taught in Jerusalem by the Apostles.

Paul simply cannot be used as evidence that the Resurrection was taught by others in Jerusalem earlier than Paul himself taught it far away from Jerusalem. Maybe it was taught or maybe it wasn't, but this thread purports to be about evidence. A delay of even a year in teaching the Resurrection locally renders any concern with an empty tomb irrelevant, since any tomb in which Jesus was placed would have been empty a year afterwards, in the natural cultural course.

Second

Habermas did a lot of psychologizing about Paul, in hopes of establishing that Paul's vision in the desert was a healthy response to a genuine visit from the risen Jesus. Much of the case was devoted to Paul not being mentally ill, despite Flew not having accused Paul of mental illness. Nevertheless, the straw man was thoroughly savaged.

The psychology here just isn't that fancy. Hallucination under physical stress is fairly routine. Paul needn't suffer from any grandiose "conversion disorder" or "conversion psychosis." Not all psychological phenomena are symptoms of psychological disorder.

Paul took a fall in an extreme climate, which left him physically incapacitated. He had to abort his mission. According to Acts 9 and 22, a good deal of Paul's conversion was because of Ananias' lengthy vision claim, not just Paul's own relatively terse experience when he fell. Ananias followed up his counseling with what may easily have been interpreted as a healing miracle, even though it may actually have been an ordinary course of recovery from trauma.

What happened to Paul is called "enantiodromia," a sudden radical reversal of behavior and beliefs. It is not necessarily a disease. Saul had been persecuting innocent people, with whom he had no real quarrel, and then he stopped. This seems an improvement in his behavior, not a reason to suspect mental illness. It is no reason at all to agree that Paul actually met Jesus.

Summing up

My conclusion remains narrow. The Resurrection is obviously a religious belief, not something that anybody could expect to be much supported by evidence, and it isn't much supported by evidence.

Thanks for the URL of the video.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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?


The Bible, show me where it says he appears to others? And I don't mean someone claiming 500 witness'.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I know from personal experience that resurrection can happen, since I came back to life after being dead for seven hours.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   


Originally posted by Eight Bits
That's OK. You can't think of any answer to my objections. No worry.


I’ve already given you an answer, in that there is no evidence for the dismissive statement you made, and yet your statement still stands and still needs to be addressed, by you.

The problem is, that you keep calling it an objection, a proposal, or that you questioned it etc. But you did no such thing; you categorically said a big fat NO to scholarly opinion and my statement along with it, without bringing evidence or having any prior knowledge of any evidence existing, before making it. Putting the emotive and attacking language/conduct to one side, it was the dismissive response, and the manner in which you acted in the posts following it, that I have the most issue with.

How you choose to address your own conduct in regards to the emotive attacking language aspect is really up to you. But I have in a sense offered you a get out clause, by allowing you to address my last post, so that we can move past this.

My own personal opinion of yourself, is that you’re an awesome poster with a great analytical mind, and just about every one of your posts I have read since I arrived here on ATS, has been of a very high quality. But with that being said, I just cannot condone the way you acted on my other thread, from page 2 onwards. IMO it was extremely bad. So it’s really up to you now. I’m kind of hoping that deep down you will come to the realization that you have done something wrong. I can’t force you to see that, but I can at least try.

As for your last post on this thread, I’m reluctant to respond to it, in case we end up going down a similarly route/pattern to the previous discussion.

Your one line flippant responses, as if everything is ok and you haven’t done anything wrong, is worrying. It seems to me like you have no empathy, and I think your question of “what’s your beef with me?”, was a very telling one, because anyone reading your posts from page 2 onwards, from my other thread, would be wondering the exact opposite i.e. what was your beef with me?

You don’t even seem to be interested in seeking any reconciliation, or in figuring out why I have an issue with your previous conduct, and in truth, that’s what worries me the most. In other words, it’s your non-actions and flippant responses to this situation, which has now become far worse than your previous conduct.

Anyway, bearing in mind everything I have said up to this point, I have decided that I’m not going to read anymore of your posts (which also means I wont be responding to anymore of them), until you address my last post, on my “Ezekiel 28” thread. That’s my final word with you on this matter, until you comply with my request.


- JC



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Paulians ... a funny bunch.


You are those to whom Jesus will say in the Judgment Day: "Depart from me, you evildoers".

You, the ones who call him "Lord", and "heal" in HIS name, and do "miracles" in HIS Name, and do EVERYTHING in HIS name - while he clearly told you that ONLY those who will do the will of God will be saved - "do the will of God" = "submit to the will of God".

Paulians ... they clearly see the errors, but choose to ignore them and be stubborn, holding on to idolatry.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
jmdewey60


I know from personal experience that resurrection can happen, since I came back to life after being dead for seven hours.

Spontaneous resuscitation was a rare, but not entirely unfamiliar phenomenon.

Apparently, that's the significance of the Resurrection being attributed to the third day (although there is no recorded witness to its happening, but only to the supposed aftermath, about 40 +/- hours after the death), or Lazarus having been in his tomb four days.

A few days passing nearly rules out resuscitation. If Jesus did rise from the dead, then the claim would be that he did something other than what might happen in the natural course.



Joe


I’ve already given you an answer,

Whatever you say. But in this thread, you haven't given me any answers.

Since you are into netiquette, let's start at the rock bottom: let's discuss the topic, not the other poster. And "topic" means the current topic, not what happened on some other thread.

Give whatever excuses you wish for not answering the points I have raised in this thread. One excuse is exactly as good as another. If you had any answers, then I suspect that you would have made them by now.

It's easy enough to prove me wrong about that, Joe.

Oh wait, you're not reading this. Never mind, then.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 

Spontaneous resuscitation was a rare, but not entirely unfamiliar phenomenon.
Wake the dead, that would be what is called a wake, now, where they would put the person in their normal spot where they would normally be in their house, like prop him up on the couch and have friends and relatives around acting like normal and see if the person may be persuaded to wake up to join the party.

It's easy enough to prove me wrong about that, Joe.
That's the thing, and something I have to remind people of every once in a while, that the other person has every opportunity to refute what anyone else says about what they said, or what someone may have said about them.
edit on 20-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


Did you read the link I gave you?

Anyway those who deny He is the Son of God deny the Father. I think those word are for those who think they are justified by faith alone. But Jesus will judge by works too. In that whole passage He is talking about works done or not done.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join