If you do not believe in God, and someone you saw raise from the dead, and told you there is a God-?

Question

-would you believe him/her? What if someone you trust told you that he/she saw someone raised from the dead? Would you believe? How far removed from the event would you have to be to stop believing?
It is a historical fact that Jesus, the claimed Christ, was a real living, breathing person. The claims of his resurrected person was witnessed by hundreds of people. As were his miracles. Why should it be any more doubtful than Columbus discovering America, or even having lived, for that matter. That is why historical records even exist, in the first place.
WE CANNOT GO BACK AND SEE IT FIRST HAND

history is alway written from the perspective of the writer and therefore from only one point of view. secondarily, it is never, ever recorder free of bias. that is not humanly possible. in all things from war to autobiography, there is always a tainted view that wins out over all other tainted views. the victor invariably writes history and vilifies the vanquished.
Was Henry Ford an ogre when it came to his workers? yes, now or kinda sorta, but it depended? All of these views are written and recorded, which is true? one? two all? you see history has many aspects and perspectives that give the WHOLE truth. As for the Bible not being a historical work, it 100% is supported by ALL available secular history of the times and places (as far as what we have EVER been able to unearth).
I would call that accurate enough to trust it on the things that only it documents.

I meant that the person, who came back to life,told you about God, that he existed and that he saw God. Sorry about not being clear enough.

I understand that there were indigenous people i the Americas, prior to the European invasion. I was just using the traditional term. I recall raising that same argument when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade. However, my teacher pointed out to me that discovery means to uncover or to reveal, and that he DID reveal, to the European continent, the Americas, and therefore the use of the term discovered is correct.

Answer 1

Wow, I was talking with some friends from church recently about this. I also had this feeling deep inside, "what if God didnt exist?" We talked for hours, debating on facts. Our conclusion: Yes, God exists. I'll try to give you some insight on what we went over.

Ok, let's not get too complicated and just give an everyday example. Suppose you got home today, and there was this beautiful chocolate cake with icing and everything, on top of ur table. Now, we have 2 theories of where that cake came from:

1) There was an HEB truck this afternoon going by ur house, and all of a sudden, a car hit it at 70mph, and the truck rolled over violently. There were eggs, flour, all sorts of stuff in the truck, and they all got mixed up in the crash, and the truck caught on fire, and the extreme heat baked all that stuff, and as the truck continued to roll on the street, the stuff flew through ur window and miraculously landed on ur table.

2) Someone who knew how to bake a chocolate cake, went there and did it, and then put it on top of ur table for you.

Which one makes more sense? If you answered #2, good! Then God created the Earth and everything in it. If you prefer to believe in an absurd and very creative theory called "the big bang", in which somehow gases mixed up, just in the right proportion, and then everything exploded and the earth was formed ... my friend, you have a very creative mind. First of all, how were those gases there? Someone must have created it. God. Stuff doesn't just appear.

=D Doesn't that make sense? Ok, now, let's get a lil more complicated.

Scientists say that man evolved from monkeys or whatever their creative mind came up with. Well, it has been proven that over time, living beings only lose genetic material, constantly. Therefore, evolution cannot be possible. The human body is so complex, there is no way it just "evolved" from something. A project called GENOMA, just recently finished their research. Their task: make a complete mapping of the human DNA. Many countries joined forces to complete this project, each taking a body part, like arm, leg, or whatever, and finding out the DNA code for it. Germany was in charge of the human eye. At the end of the project, they said that the human eye was so complex, that there was NO WAY it could have evolved from some other animal. It's a fact. Scientists researched and wrote it down. Aren't they contradicting themselves now? Ok, I believe I made a point on this one. Mankind did not evolve. God made man in His image.

Ok, now back to the big bang stuff. The NASA has been measuring the distance from the Earth to the moon, and it's a fact that every year the moon gets further and further away from the Earth. Fact. It's been proven. It's also a mathematical equation. So, if we take that mathematical equation, and do it backwards, we come up with how long since the earth and the moon we're almost touching. The calculations say something about 10 thousand years. It can't be more than that, otherwise the moon would have been rolling around on the earth.

Also, it's possible to calculate the rate of aging of the Earth. Every year, scientists calculate the rate at which the Earth is aging. It's roughly the same. If we then backtrack how long since the Earth was relatively "new", the calculations vary from 10 to 12 thousand years. It's fact.

Also, the population of the Earth. Today, we have roughly 6.5 billion people alive. Populations, increase in a mathematical progression. In other words, there will always be more people alive today, than there are people dead. Fact. It's not possible to have more people dead than alive. Draw a sketch of a simple family tree, and you'll stumble upon the same conclusion. So, if we backtrack how long since the beggining of population, the results say somewhere between 10 to 12 thousand years.

Every fact that we can backtrace, falls upon the same range. 10 to 12 thousand years. In other words, the Earth is relatively new, not millions of years old as some scientists say.

So, why would scientists not agree with this? Why would they come up with these ridiculous theories about some big bang or whatever? The answer is simple. At the very moment that they agree that there is an all-powerful being, a God, that created everything we know, they realize all their sins. At the moment they realize their sins, they know that they'll have to eventually have a commitment and a close relationship with God. They don't want any commitments to anyone. So what's the easy way out? Make up some random theories that we evolved from monkeys and that the Earth just happens to have been created randomly by a Big Bang, that they themselves can't explain how it supposedly happened.

I sincerely hope this has opened your eyes to the truth. Thanks for reading this, and I really hope that you now accept the commitment that God wants you to have with Him. If you're already commited with God, then I hope this text has restrengthened your faith.

God Bless all of you, and have a great day.

Answer 2

Because not everyone believed him, even first hand. And because no one has a decent reason to try and prove Columbus discovering America if he didn't. Whereas God - people have always had Gods, and always tried to prove them. Plus, the proof of Columbus' outing is still there today - we can go to America. There is no proof that Jesus rose from the dead.
And the Bible is not a hisorical record. Historical records are unbiased and impartial - the Bible is definitely not this. You're even taught in History not to believe sources from one point of view, especially if they forcefully state their case with little or no evidence.

And excuse me one minute here - did Christopher Columbus discover America? He wasn't the first. Or don't native american indians count as people to you?

x

Sudy Nim - BECAUSE THE APOSTLES WEREN't REAL

Answer 3

There is more written "proof" about Homer's Odyssey. Does this mean the Cyclops really existed? What about Zeus? What about Medusa?

I don't know what historical "facts" you're talking about here. Apart from the bible, the closest they can come is Josephus, which even most conservative christian scholars recognize as being tampered with by the early church.

Yes, we cannot go back and see it firsthand. For me, I don't even care about OTHER historical information being shady.

The minimum I ask for is that the bible not contradict ITSELF about the most imporant day ever- the resurrection. Check it out. Matthew Mark Luke and John disagree on: WHO went to the tomb, WHEN they went, WHY they went, WHO was there (men or angels), HOW many (1 or 2), WHAT they said, WAS the stone rolled away or not. There are 30 in all.

A BARE MINIMUM is that the holy book doesn't hopelessly contradict ITSELF. That really isn't too much to ask for.

Answer 4

If I saw it myself I would first question that the person was actually dead. Then I would question his claims of divinity. A man appearing to be dead, and then sitting up is proof of no such thing. A man telling me he is god proves nothing, I could just as easily tell him I was god. I would ask what other proof he had of his supernatural abilities....and if he had nothing else, I would then not believe his story. Why, how gullible are you???

As to the rest, you are completely wrong. There is, in fact, precious little evidence there was a real historical person that is the basis for the Jesus cults. There is no evidence for anything else other than the fictionliized writings of men with a religious axe to grind hundreds of years after the "events"

The bible is not a historical record. It is logically incoherent, inconsistant, contradictory and just plain wrong factually.

Answer 5

The resurrection was part of numerous religions before christians stole it and incorporated it into their belief system. Iy did not happen and will not happen to me. Nobody is going to rise from the daed and tell me god exists so the question is completely pointless

Answer 6

Good question.

Many people who consider the ressurection of Christ as a lie perpetrated by the apostles never bother to ask why then would all (but one of the aposltes) die for this lie.

Answer 7

His story is really just that, his story. But I have to say there are a whole lot more references to Jesus then there is Columbus. I can only think of one thing that reportedly Columbus did, however I have heard of thousands of things Jesus did. I guess it is a matter of faith isn't it, is your world round or square???

Answer 8

but christopher columbus did not discover America really... history is only as true as the person telling it