Did that Jesus guy really rise from the dead? Does the bible give a true account of what happened?

Answer 1

I have looked at the stories about Jesus' resurrection, and I find it incredibly difficult to understand why Christians think the stories represent accurate accounts of real-life events. The only information we have on what is billed as the most amazing, most astounding, most awe-inspiring and the single most important event in the history of the entire universe consists of just four inconsistent, absurd, contradicting stories from four anonymous people.

I will describe just a few of the problems here. The mention of zombies marching down main street Jerusalem is found in only one Gospel, and it not mentioned by anyone who lived at the time. You would think that someone else, especially the other Gospel writers, might have thought to make note of this. Likewise, the three-hour worldwide darkness described in the Gospels is curiously absent from any writings from the time. What can explain this-worldwide amnesia? Christians often claim that the Gospels represent eyewitness accounts, which is strange since we have no idea who penned these stories. What is also strange is that these "eyewitness accounts" describe Jesus entering hell, talking with the devil on a mountain-top (an impossibly high mountain-top at that) and, at the end of the story, sitting in a throne in heaven. Who were the eyewitnesses to Jesus entering heaven and hell and chatting with the devil? The timeline and details between the four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are so contradictory that it is impossible to write a single coherent version of what, exactly, happened-if any of it actually happened at all. I believe that two Gospels even have Jesus ascending to heaven from two quite different locations. Did Jesus rise, then come down and then rise once again in an encore performance of his mystical ascension to heaven? The first Gospel, Mark, which was written 40 years after Jesus was supposedly resurrected, did not even have a resurrection, just an empty tomb. The last 4 paragraphs of Mark were tacked on later by someone, who, like the original writer, remains anonymous.

On top of these and other problems, there is the existence of resurrection stories from other religions that predate the Christian resurrection story. Dying and resurrecting gods were all the rage back at the time when the Jesus story started making the rounds. Is this simply some sort of wacky coincidence? I don't think so. Apologists spill a lot of ink, wear down their keyboards, and stretch logic and language to their outer limits and beyond to deny any connection whatsoever between earlier religions and Christianity. It is an interesting display of their craft, but hardly convincing.

And looking at things from another angle, the idea of the resurrection itself makes no sense whatsoever. Let's see if I can sort it all out: God, who can see the future and is all-powerful, creates people, and they make him angry for being the way he created them (despite his omniscience, God is surprised and angry about this somehow). Because God is so outraged by this outcome (that he had foreseen), he arranges to have the people he created murder him (or his son-I still don't understand whether Jesus and God are one or two people) so as to remove the anger that God feels at the people he created. This whole scenario is supposed to make some kind of sense to rational people. But wait, the story is not done yet: God has created a place called hell where people who do not accept this story will spend eternity screaming in agony.

The apologist Josh McDowell has created what he calls the Resurrection Trilemma, which proposes that there are only three possible explanations for the resurrection story-either Jesus is a liar, or he is a lunatic, or he is the Lord. Here is my twist on McDowell's handy little mnemonic device: The three possible logical explanations for the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus are:

1) God is stupid.
2) God is sadistic.
3) The resurrection story is a false story, and quite silly as well.

Actually, this could be a quadlemma, since God could be both stupid and sadistic.

Another 10 points please k thx.

Answer 2

The Bible provides an account of the Resurrection, but no particularly convincing evidence. After all, they were written 30 or more years after the fact by people who, shall we say, had a biased view of the whole matter.

Other facts seem to me to be more compelling:

1) Women, not highly regarded in first-century Jerusalem, are recorded as having been the first to witness the empty tomb. A better-concocted story would certainly have placed a male (a more reliable witness, at least to first-century minds) at the scene.

2) The Roman and Jewish authorities failed to produce a body to put an end to the fledgling group of Christians. Sure, it's possible that the Christians stole the body and hid the "evidence," but I would have suspected that the Romans and the Jewish leaders would have had a vested interest in seeing to it that nothing fishy happen to Jesus's body - the account states that the tomb was well-guarded by Roman soldiers who knew how to follow orders.

3) A small group of men and women dramatically altered the course of their lives based on their experience of the risen Christ. Why would these people have risked their lives and suffered such horrible deaths for a lie? Were they nuts, or did something fantastic and unexplainable really take place?

In the end, there is and never will be any definitive evidence for or against the Resurrection. It is a matter of faith.

Answer 3

"That guy Jesus" is a pretty offensive way to speak about the Son of God. Yes, he really rose from the dead. Yes, the New Testament gives an account of his Resurrection. Read it with an open mind and heart and Jesus will enter your heart with the truth.

Answer 4

Yes...on the Third Day...and there were more than 500+ eye witnesses.

The Holy Bible is true...and there are additional historical documents that prove it's true, too.

God / Jesus ROCKS!!!

Answer 5

The Bible is really just a fake story, perhaps a bit like the Loch Ness monster tales.

When we pass on information to another (example: story, joke, description of something etc) by the time these details are passed on by word of mouth, interpreted by others, and then written down, the final details are typically quite different than the original information.

Since the Bible is just a man-made story passed down over many years in various forms, the chance of it being accurate in any shape or form is remote.

There are people who swear blind that the Loch Ness monster exists regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, but a fence post bobbing up and down in the Loch does the trick. Similarly there are people who swear blind that God exists and the Bible is fact, yet there isn’t one blind bit of evidence to support such theories.

Biblical tales are really no different than Loch Ness monster tales, just the era is different.

Answer 6

yes it does Jesus's body went to the tomb and an angel came and opened the tomb and Jesus was risen on the third day after he was crusified. n y dont u just read the bible sometime?

Answer 7

Yes, but He is still doing things around here now. To find proof of it, simply go yourself to where His people meet and observe. All humans are naturally selfish and self serving, but Jesus' Kingdom gives of itself and the world is incredibly blessed by the continued influence of Christ.

Answer 8

Yes and Yes.
By the way, that Jesus guy just so happens to be God in the flesh.

Answer 9

Yes it does, that is what Easter is all about. HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD! HALLELUJAH!

Jesus Christ has Risen today- Hallelujah! (Its a Hymn)

Answer 10

I believe that the answer is yes to both questions.