Historical Evidence for the ressurection

[Arthur Durnan]

Jesus of Nazareth & Heaven: Don't Leave Earth Without Him! Check John 3:1-7 & John 14:1-6

[MorningGlory]

There is alot more than just a few peoplewho didn't think Jesus was God

Of course there was. But it is telling that those who knew Him best had doubts.

there are still the many extra-biblical accounts to go by

Such as? I won't ask you to even name "many", perhaps you could list what you think are the five most convincing non-biblical accounts.

as well as science and logic that back up the bible's extraordinary claims.

Well, lets look at a few of the Bibles extraordinary claims and perhaps you can explain how science backs them up.

1. Virgin birth.

2. Walking on water.

3. Feeding masses with a few loaves and fish.

4. Water turning into wine.

5. The resurrection of Lazarus.

As a side note, thefact that the disciples are very open about the fact that they did not initially believe is very convincing that they were not out to lie and distort the truth, but to recod what they saw accurately.

Or it could be a device to make you think they are being open and honest. Either way, if they knew Jesus was divine and still denied Him they have demonstrated their willingness to lie about such things. If they didn't know Jesus was divine then they weren't very good witnesses. It doesn't matter how you look at it, their testimony doesn't amount to very strong evidence.

A blind man isn't going to see the writing on the wall regardless of how big the letters, N.C. I pray that your eyes will be opened to the Truth; that you see how silly a 2,000 year old alleged lie, to make us think the apostles were honest, really is. They had no clue we would know their names in 2009, I'm sure.

[Rick-Parker]

If the Bible portrayed the disciples as strong in faith from the get-go, you would find fault with them for having strong faith, just as you do with us. You don't have a genuine, intellectually credible reason for your doubt. You simply don't want to believe and you are unwilling to be convinced. There is no amount of evidence or proof that can be offered to someone who has nothing but lame excuses to justify unbelief.

The fact that the testimony in which you want me to place my faith is from "immature, faithless, quick tempered, vengeful, doubting, confused, selfish, greedy, arrogant and elitist, disloyal" men from approximately 2000 years ago is not an intellectually credible reason for doubt? Maybe it is enough for you Shiloh, that is fine, but it isn't enough for me. If Jesus wants me, He can come and get me Himself.

Jesus has already done all the work. He has come to get you. All you have to do is accept His free gift. You have free will. You are making empty excuses, trying to blame it on men who lived 2000 years instead of accepting responsibility for your own actions.

[Guest shiloh357]

If the Bible portrayed the disciples as strong in faith from the get-go, you would find fault with them for having strong faith, just as you do with us. You don't have a genuine, intellectually credible reason for your doubt. You simply don't want to believe and you are unwilling to be convinced. There is no amount of evidence or proof that can be offered to someone who has nothing but lame excuses to justify unbelief.

The fact that the testimony in which you want me to place my faith is from "immature, faithless, quick tempered, vengeful, doubting, confused, selfish, greedy, arrogant and elitist, disloyal" men from approximately 2000 years ago is not an intellectually credible reason for doubt? Maybe it is enough for you Shiloh, that is fine, but it isn't enough for me. If Jesus wants me, He can come and get me Himself.

What you seem to be unable to understand that is those characteristics I mentinoed pertain to the apostles before the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The Bible does not leave us with the apostles in that condition but shows us men whom after the prophecies had been fulfilled, after they saw Jesus alive, they were transformed from being faithfless, to having a boldness in faith that was virtually stoppable and uncontainable.

It's like I said before, if the Bible had protrayed them has strong in faith, you would have just written them off as superstitious. So really, people like you demonstrate a lack of intellectual credibility because you will oppose the Bible no matter which direction it takes. It really comes down to nothing but excuses on your part, not intellectual or rational doubt.

[CSLewis]

How do you (negative cool) explain the transformation that took place

in these men on the road to Emmaus? How did they change from doubtful to martyrs?

[Arthur Durnan]

Agnostic nay-sayers re Jesus' physical, everlasting, glorious resurrection from death's puissant grip completely overlook what could have been the most obvious conclusive proof for their sorry position: simply produce the dead Body of Jesus & place it at the corner of First & Main Streets in downtown Jerusalem! Ergo, no Christianity ever and current claims for a resurrected Jesus would be as flat as an Afghan rug! Of course they didn't produce His Body because they didn't have His Body! Agnostics seldom strive for perspicuity.

The truth of the entire matter, though, is that the "stolen body" excuse didn't work. Neither did that flimsy "He-didn't-really-die" theory. It's like climbing trees to get to the moon. Do man's pigs fly? Only in the agnostic's self-concocted dream-world minus God. Hear the fact afresh: the stone outside Christ's tomb was only a pebble compared to the Rock of Ages inside it!

Hey, my agnostic friend, a guy has just come in office. He wants to sell me a faberge egg, a microchip and a Tilley hat. No way. I think I'll have him leave.

Thank You, Lord Jesus, for conquering death on my behalf! I'll never cease to praise You.

God Bless America!

Sarah Palin For The USA 2012!

[irishcowboy]

if a person was to use the "martyrdom" as evidence, then you would have to use the same excuse/reason for Islam....

I am not trying to refute any bodys thoughts, just wanted to point that out..... islam martyr numbers are close to Christian as far as the news lets us know.... however we do not hear of them all.... in 1996 ( I believe) there was like 160,000+ Christians killed for their faith, and yet how many made the news.... so..... open martyrs would have to say islamic, for totals, i do not knw the ballance

mike

[Sir Gareth]

if a person was to use the "martyrdom" as evidence, then you would have to use the same excuse/reason for Islam....

I am not trying to refute any bodys thoughts, just wanted to point that out..... islam martyr numbers are close to Christian as far as the news lets us know.... however we do not hear of them all.... in 1996 ( I believe) there was like 160,000+ Christians killed for their faith, and yet how many made the news.... so..... open martyrs would have to say islamic, for totals, i do not knw the ballance

mike

The big difference is this, the Islamic martyrs are modern. If I were to be martyred tommorrow for my faith you could say that I was killed for something I 'believed' was true. The Apostles, on the other hand, were first hand witnesseses. They were at liberty to know without a doubt that they were wrong, and if they knew they were wrong they would not have died for what they 'knew' was a lie.

[Sir Gareth]

if a person was to use the "martyrdom" as evidence, then you would have to use the same excuse/reason for Islam....

I am not trying to refute any bodys thoughts, just wanted to point that out..... islam martyr numbers are close to Christian as far as the news lets us know.... however we do not hear of them all.... in 1996 ( I believe) there was like 160,000+ Christians killed for their faith, and yet how many made the news.... so..... open martyrs would have to say islamic, for totals, i do not knw the ballance

mike

The big difference is this, the Islamic martyrs are modern. If I were to be martyred tommorrow for my faith you could say that I was killed for something I 'believed' was true. The Apostles, on the other hand, were first hand witnesseses. They were at liberty to know without a doubt that they were wrong, and if they knew they were wrong they would not have died for what they 'knew' was a lie.

[Sir Gareth]

They knew he was the Son of God. What they didn't understand was His purpose. They believed that he was going to literally take the throne and depose the Romans. They did not understand what He was saying whenever He told them about His future - His capture, His torture, His crucifixion and His resurrection. They did not understand His parable of the destruction of the Temple (Him) and it (Him) being rebuilt in 3 days. They were human beings who had been led astray by the religious elite of their time; they carried these preconceived ideas with them when they were called to be Jesus' Disciples. When Jesus reappeared after the resurrection, then they finally understood. Think about how much more we are cherished by the Lord as we believe without having seen.

If they knew that He was the Son of God and yet denied it then they have a demonstrated and documented history of falsehood when it comes to these kind of claims. These are not the kind of people who inspire my confidence in their testimony.

Yet even after they denied Jesus they stillcame back and proclaimed him after the ressurection despite the fact that they were threatened, beaten and eventually killed for it.

it would be easy for them to say they were wrong and sorry for it. If someone put a gun to your head and told you to say, not believe but just say, that Jesus was right would you say it just to save your life? All the spostles had to do was not talk about Jesus and yet they refused even in the face of suffering and death.

Of course the writers of the Bible say that is what happened, that is what they want you to believe. I'm sure anything that said otherwise has long since been destroyed by the Church. History is written by the victors.

Yes, the apostles were very victorious. Which ones were the victors? Peter, who was cruxified upside down? James, who was skinned alive? Paul, who was beheaded? (after he decided to stop persecuting the christians and joined them.)

Well maybe John was the victor, after all he died of old age after being exiled to an island.

Yep, they certainly took over the roman empire and forced their beliefs on everyone.

So since that didn't work got anything else?