What evidence supports the theory of “resurrection”?

[Zzyzx]

Biblical reports indicate that a god-man was killed and was placed in a tomb for three days under guard, the body was missing when the tomb was opened, and the deceased was reportedly seen alive afterward.

A number of questions arise:

1. Was the person actually dead? How was death verified? Many cases of apparent death are cases of mistaken diagnosis or of deliberate falsification.

2. Would it have been possible for the tomb to have been entered or exited during the three days in question? Guards are not absolutely reliable and have been known to be distracted or bribed. A stone put in place by humans could be moved by humans. Is there any assurance that a substitution or some other slight-of-hand could not have taken place?

3. What impartial persons verified that the god-man lived after “arising from the dead”? Claims of associates, particularly close associates, to have seen the deceased living after death are not the most reliable source of truthful information.

If “resurrection” is not factual, is the basis of Christianity still valid?

[Goat]

None of those are eye witness accounts. They were stories written down decades after the alleged accounts.. not by an eye witness.

Where are the ones by the people who actually saw it, not by people telling stories later.

he gave you eyewitness accounts which you reject. decades later? ya sure? check it out..........[/quote]

You see, they were not eye witness accounts. They were later tradition. THey were stories.

Matthew and Luke both borrowed from Mark. Mark, according to the early church fathers, was written by a disciple of Peter after 'Peter and paul had left the earth'.. i.e. died. Peter, according to Church tradition, died in 65 c.e. , and Mark supposedly got all his information from him.

So, considering what even early church tradition said, no, none of the gospels were written by eye witnesses.

[Zzyzx]

you know the answer to that. so toss out the early historians. ok....who ELSE would be reliable? there is NO one you can say would be reliable enough. eyewitness accounts are not good enough, early historians are not good enough, second hand accounts wouldnt suit you....that leaves.....who?

That leaves no one -- which is the point of discussion. Biblical claims are unsupported.

It must be frustrating to attempt to argue a point when one has only a single "proof" of their theories and no supporting, independent evidence, no historical record, no first-person accounts, not even any evidence that the characters lived as claimed by legend.

Of course, it is necessary to defend scripture because that is the basis of organized, commercial religon. Without "resurrection" and "afterlife" Christian dogma would be meaningless.

[katiej49]

The historical evidence from the Scriptures say otherwise.

"Historical evidence from scriptures" is oxymoronic.

why is that different from other historical evidence? you set a different standard for the Bible than for other books of history....

[katiej49]

The historical evidence from the Scriptures say otherwise.

"Historical evidence from scriptures" is oxymoronic.

1 Corinthians 15:3-6

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

[katiej49]

John 20:25-28, "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Luke 24:39, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

[achilles12604]

Why is everyone talking to Easyrider and ignoring my 3 hours of hard work and multiple cited sources?

Does no body like me anymore? *sniffle*

[bernee51]

The historical evidence from the Scriptures say otherwise.

"Historical evidence from scriptures" is oxymoronic.

1 Corinthians 15:3-6

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

These are not eye witness accounts - they are third party statements that claim eye witness accounts.

They are not "I saw..." statements, they are "So and so said they saw...." statements.

As is every last one of the so-called "eye witness accounts".

[Easyrider]

The historical evidence from the Scriptures say otherwise.

"Historical evidence from scriptures" is oxymoronic.

1 Corinthians 15:3-6

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

These are not eye witness accounts - they are third party statements that claim eye witness accounts.

They are not "I saw..." statements, they are "So and so said they saw...." statements.

As is every last one of the so-called "eye witness accounts".

Nope.

1 John 4:14 - And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Matthew, John, and Peter, amongst others, were original disciples and eyewitnesses.

Besides, if you want to apply first hand eyewitness accounts to everything from antiquity you will have to rip out gigantic portions of most history books.

[Zzyzx]

Why is everyone talking to Easyrider and ignoring my 3 hours of hard work and multiple cited sources?

Achilles,

Dry your eyes. We still love you. It is just that it takes many hours to DIGEST what you have writ. I have your post in a Word document and am working my way through with responses. Your part alone is 8.5 pages long.

[bernee51]

The historical evidence from the Scriptures say otherwise.

"Historical evidence from scriptures" is oxymoronic.

1 Corinthians 15:3-6

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

These are not eye witness accounts - they are third party statements that claim eye witness accounts.

They are not "I saw..." statements, they are "So and so said they saw...." statements.

As is every last one of the so-called "eye witness accounts".

Nope.

1 John 4:14 - And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Is this referring to before or after his supposed resurrection?

[
Matthew, John, and Peter, amongst others, were original disciples and eyewitnesses.

Do they record 'I" statements or third party claims?

[
Besides, if you want to apply first hand eyewitness accounts to everything from antiquity you will have to rip out gigantic portions of most history books.

The bible is not a history book