Historical Evidence for the ressurection

[Sir Gareth]

Extra-biblical sources that back up the bible.

1.) Josephus, the famed and well documented Jewish historian.

2.) Tacitus, the roman chronicler.

3.) The dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known remnants of the OT, with many prophecies of the messiah, which Jesus fullfilled.

4.) The histories of babylon which record some of the events reported in the OT

5.) The histories of Rome, including the history of the persecution of Paul and other apostles.

6.) egyptian histoties, which record events in the OT, by the way they found some chariots at the bottom of the red sea, JUST like exodus records.

None of these are contemporary with the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Only Josephus mentions the resurrection and it is likely that this is a later addition. This is hardly "many extra-biblical accounts" that provide historical evidence for the resurrection.

You do realize that many things including chariots would have been carried by ships that sometimes sink right? Did they find the armor and bones of a massive army with the chariots like Exodus records?

None of the historical sources for Alexander the great come from contemperaries. The closest one is about five hundred years removed. Agustus Ceaser, considered to be one of the greatest Roman emporers, is not mentioned in history by any contemperary source and neither are Juilius Ceaser, Homer or any other of the major ancient historical figures, yet we don't doubt whats written about them.

The Gospels were written very close to the life of Jesus by first hand witnesses or by those who were able to interview first hand witnesses. The historical value of the cannonical Gospels is the kind of history that scholars drool over. If we could find a biography of Alexander the Great written by even a distant relative or someone who met just once it would still be hundreds of times better than the sources we have for him now.

[Rick-Parker]

A blind man isn't going to see the writing on the wall regardless of how big the letters, N.C.

It's a horrible "catch 22" MG.

I can't believe it until I see it, but apparently I can't see it until I believe it.

I know, N.C., and that's why I'm praying for you and the other unbelievers that post here. I've had that conundrum explained to me before and I agree it's a real problem. It's not impossible though; there are plenty of Christians who were in that same place at one time.

Theres still plenty you can see, historical, scientific and other evidences.

look deeper than scientific naturalism would allow, let just a little bit of faith in and see what happens...all you need is as much as a mustard seed.

And yet you haven't really provided these plentiful evidences. In the end, the only evidence I need is Jesus Himself. Allegedly He appeared to Paul, He appeared to the disciples, He appeared to Cleopas and some other nameless man, He appeared to hundreds yet He refuses to appear to me. If He wants me, He can come get me Himself. I get accused of making excuses to not believe the Bible yet all I hear is excuses from Christians as to why He won't appear to me.

You sound just like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Christ's day. They demanded miracles to prove that Jesus was who He said He was, yet refused to see what He had already done. They said the same things while Jesus was on the Cross - "If you are who you say you are, save yourself." And we all know where they ended up (whether you believe it or not.)

[Guest shiloh357]

The difference is we are not expected to believe that Alexander or Julius Caesar performed acts that defy the way things generally work. I'm quite happy to put Jesus in the same category, I see no reason to dispute that there was a man named Jesus in the area of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago who was a wise teacher and was crucified. However, if in addition to this you want me to believe that Jesus walked on water, resurrected Lazarus, turned water to wine and rose from the dead, you'll need something more than what you have produced.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Well there is a resurrection that so far, no one has been able to disprove or discredit. And they have been trying for 2,000 years.

The problem with your request is that it is fairly unreasonable. You demand evidence that you know a modern Christian cannot produce, and then pretend as if that counts as a victory against the observable and documented clams of the Bible, while you ignore the evidences for reliability of the claims of the Bible. Frankly, for someone who pretends to approach things from an intellectual perspective, you seem throw it out the window where the Bible is concerned.

How much do we really know about the basis of the heretical teachings of Marcion or Arius for example? How many complete copies of the Gospels of Thomas, Judas or Mary do we have? The fact is that the church has a long history of success when it came to the systematic destruction of anything that ran counter to official doctrine. It isn't a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, it is a conspiracy theory. You don't know beans about Church history. I realize, though, that you are not going to let facts get in the way of your conspiriacy nonsense.

[CSLewis]

Neg.- You are asking for natural evidence for a miraculous occurence .

[Guest]

.... And yet you haven't really provided these plentiful evidences. In the end, the only evidence I need is Jesus Himself. Allegedly He appeared to Paul, He appeared to the disciples, He appeared to Cleopas and some other nameless man, He appeared to hundreds yet He refuses to appear to me. If He wants me, He can come get me Himself. I get accused of making excuses to not believe the Bible yet all I hear is excuses from Christians as to why He won't appear to me ....

And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. Matthew 11:17

[Fez]

Neg.- You are asking for natural evidence for a miraculous occurrence .

Yes.

And yet if you were offered proof of miracle's that happen today, you would have an "explanation' for them, so whats the point of discussing them with you?

[Botz]

Neg.- You are asking for natural evidence for a miraculous occurrence .

Yes.

And yet if you were offered proof of miracle's that happen today, you would have an "explanation' for them, so whats the point of discussing them with you?

Luke 16:19

[Sir Gareth]

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?

I don't think you understand. The "church" has a long history of destroying anything that ran counter to their official doctrine. The reason everything seems to support the one view is that nearly everything from competing views has been destroyed. Imagine for a moment that all the apostles had recanted when faced with death and this was documented. Do you think the church would have let this be circulated?

And yet there are still gnostic gospels which contradict the cannonical gospels. There are the apocrypha which is considered non-cannonical by most.

There are lots of other doctrines that were being taught, some that Paul and other apostles even warned about, that still exist today.

I think it's funny that atheists get so mad when Christians start throwing out conspiracy theories about evolution and what not, but it's perfectly fine for them to throw out all their own conspiracies.

How much do we really know about the basis of the heretical teachings of Marcion or Arius for example? How many complete copies of the Gospels of Thomas, Judas or Mary do we have? The fact is that the church has a long history of success when it came to the systematic destruction of anything that ran counter to official doctrine. It isn't a conspiracy theory.

ok, lets see your evidence. Which scholars support this theory and what evidence do they use to support it?

Please stay away from using Dan Brown, he's been so thoughouraly debunked already.

[Sir Gareth]

Neg.- You are asking for natural evidence for a miraculous occurence .

Yes.

So the evidences of people being healed by prayer, of cancer remitting not by the acts of any earlthy doctor but by the hand of God answering prayers is not enough for you?

If ressurections were common enough for you to believe in them the next thing you'd say would be this 'See, it's notso special that Jesus raised from the dead, others did it too.'

[Guest shiloh357]

Neg.- You are asking for natural evidence for a miraculous occurence .

Yes.

Yes and do you not see how irrational that is??