For those who dont believe in Jesus' resurrection check this out: Read then answer. What is your opinion on..

Question

the issue now?

I know it has scripture, but please still read.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/res_nonbiblical.htm

Answer 1

FACT: the apostles are historical people who died testifying about Jesus resurrection and divinity.

FACT: The apostle Paul was a persecutor of Christ's followers till he himself became convinced it was all true.

FACT: Christianity certainly did spread at a phenominal rate after the death of the apostles and the Christians being fed to lions by Rome.

FACT: The Romans and Jewish authorities of that time could not account for Christ's missing body even though they took every precaution to guard it.

FACT: These events of Christ's life, death, and resurrection were all fortold in the Old Testament prophesies (300+) that were fulfilled which is a statistical impossibility for a human being. There is a saying: The New Testament is concealed in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. Anyone who really wants to know the truth can discover this truth.

Answer 2

OK, I'll read it. Very unconvincing and full of factual errors.

The New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses before the death of the apostles.

Not true, John was written in approx c. 90–110, 60 to 80 years after the alleged cricifiction. The writers probably heard the story second, third, or even a hundreth hand...

We must first understand that the Gospels are historical documents and they are reliable ones.

No they are not, they are inconsistent in many details (such as the date of the crucifiction itself - John, the day of preperation for the passover, the other, the day of passover)

It is not accurate to say that there are no extra biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ. There are other historians who have written about this. However, the problem with most of them is that they were not contemporaries of Jesus. They were written well after the fact. This, therefore, tends to invalidate the reliability of these extra biblical accounts according to the critics.

Yep, it does.

But if the extra biblical accounts are not valid because they were written after the fact by non eyewitnesses, then that indirectly supports the gospel accounts which were written by the eyewitnesses, by those who knew Jesus, and encountered him after his resurrection.

Sorry, that logic doesn't work in developing a hypothesis

How do you have witnesses to the resurrection?

Simple, they made it up...

Jesus would have to appear only to those who had seen Him before His crucifixion since appearing to someone who had never seen Him nor knew that He died, would prove nothing.

So that whole, Paul thing didn't happen. Paul did not know jesus personally.

We do have non-biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

No you don't, the quote from Josephus has already been debunked as an addition in the third to fourth century


Conclusion

The evidence (and I use that term very loosely) presented would not hold up even in traffic court. It's written by people, who obviously don't keep up with the current information and don't want facts to disrupt their world view...

Answer 3

Thank you for this important question.

I do not believe that ANY man can die and come back to life and then bodily ascend into Heaven, despite the fact that there are earlier bibles that contained verses that the apostles actually saw this happen.

I do believe that Jesus was revived or resussitated. That the man survived the crusifixion. I believe that he was severely injured and needed not only to recuperate, but also to escape the system that was responsible for the attempted crusifixion. Had they discovered him, they would have simply tried the same thing over again and been successful in actually killing him. This is why he did nor surrender himself again to the authorities. They would have been obliged to finish the job they started.

In a metaphorical sense I do believe that the resurection of Jesus is something that WE DO when we "treat our fellow Humans they way that we would like to be treated."

Answer 4

That isn't proof. It more or less just says: even though there aren't any non-biblical writings about the resurrection of Jesus that weren't from hundreds of years later doesn't mean that the Bible isn't right.

There isn't any evidence that Jesus existed outside of the Bible and writings from hundreds of years later, let alone evidence that He rose from the dead.

If you want to believe in the resurrection, that is your choice. But don't expect non-Christians (and some Christians, for that matter) to believe in it. Don't bother trying to find evidence to back up your faith. It's both pointless and it degrades your religion.

Believe in what you want, but understand that there aren't facts to back it up. It doesn't make your beliefs any less true for you if others choose to believe differently.

Answer 5

while objection to Bible accounts is sometimes stated in logical terms the root cause is emotional. These people are rebelling. Rebelliousness has a object. Usually the object is a parent most often, be them cold or absent, or harsh, usually emotionally unavailable. Thus pointing out logic will probably bring an emotional response.. The information they can not and are leaa likely to take issue with is your own personal salvation story. use your imagenation on how to present it.

Answer 6

Unfortunaely Jesus was a man of flesh and blood, he died and remained dead.

Believe what you want, the bible was written years after many of the events recounted took place and the 27 books of the Old testament were chosen out of many writings about that period (of the life of Jesus). What better way to really give a new religion a major push than to deify someone long after thay are dead.

Answer 7

Makes perfect sense to me. I believe. Aways have. The article is right in asking "Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen?" That true, why lie if it meant being persecuted and finally killed for what they believed? It makes more sense to believe that their actions were consistent with their teaching.

Answer 8

It boils down to, "There's no proof it didn't happen, so since the Bible says it did, it must have."

Prove to me that the Bible is true without using self-reference, unless you've proven a passage first from external sources and then use it to help prove another passage.

Answer 9

Oh my God! I read it on the internet so it has to be true! I'm going to hell! Give me a break guy. Science is my religion, and the proof is in the pudding.

Answer 10

That was great research, you did ! Yes,I know Jesus resurrected, it is wonderful.