What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

[McCulloch]

What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. giving that it happened way before cameras etc were invented?

P4JC

Good question P4JC.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

cnorman 18 wrote:

This is, after all, a family site.

Tired of the Nonsense answers::

Yes, I understand. It's kind of too bad though really. It's much more entertaining when the gloves are off, and caustic comments are my true medium. Only in self defence of course. Besides, the only satisfaction possible in this sort of medium as watching the other side dissolve into raving incoherence. But I have been making an effort to restrain myself and stay within the rules of civility here. And now I'm toying with using the name Bruce Vilanch.

[cnorman18]

cnorman 18 wrote:

This is, after all, a family site.

Tired of the Nonsense answers::

Yes, I understand. It's kind of too bad though really. It's much more entertaining when the gloves are off, and caustic comments are my true medium.

You do realize that "appeal to ridicule" is a logical fallacy, yes?

Personally, I find verbal cockfights colossally boring as well as productive of nothing whatever, except perhaps artificially inflating the egos of the participants.

Only in self defence of course. Besides, the only satisfaction possible in this sort of medium as watching the other side dissolve into raving incoherence.

Another matter of taste, I suppose. I find that learning about the points of view of others and having my own challenged, both of which can result in my changing my own ideas, very satisfying indeed.

But I have been making an effort to restrain myself and stay within the rules of civility here. And now I'm toying with using the name Bruce Vilanch.

Personally, I regard participation in this forum as a learning experience, and a way to make contact with other minds, cordially, respectfully, and without rancor. You seem to regard the forum as a pit bull ring and debate as a blood sport.

To each his own. I doubt we'll be debating much.

[JoeyKnothead]

What evidence is there to show Jesus rose from the dead?

So far we've been offered accounts from the Bible, a somewhat or completely circular approach, and little else.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

To cnorman 18

My problem is that I love to laugh, especially at people. The world is a ridiculous place, and virtually everything humans do is funny if you look at it the right way. Christians don't seem to have much of a sense of humor, and it is difficult NOT to poke fun at them. Often the humor either escapes them, or they over react. But that's funny too. We all need to lighten up. Life's short, and that's all we get.

And I am perfectly capable of being civil. I was hoping for a perfectly civil discussion with Jester in fact on the "Does God require us to be naive and stupid to accept him?" string. I hope I haven't been stood up. Again.

[cnorman18]

To cnorman 18

My problem is that I love to laugh, especially at people. The world is a ridiculous place, and virtually everything humans do is funny if you look at it the right way. Christians don't seem to have much of a sense of humor, and it is difficult NOT to poke fun at them. Often the humor either escapes them, or they over react. But that's funny too. We all need to lighten up. Life's short, and that's all we get.

That's one perspective, and sometimes I take it myself; but I don't live there.

One of the things I find hard to take about this place, to be honest, is precisely that sort of attitude. Both sides (so to speak) in this debate are so focused on proving each other wrong, ridiculous, or evil that no one takes a moment to see what we might have to learn from each other.

At the very least, theists can learn much about how they and their churches appear to outsiders, and that's nothing but good; which is not to say that nontheist philosophy and other insights, even the most cynical, have no value for theist and nontheist alike. And one doesn't have to believe to agree that some religions, at least, have much that is useful and true to say about ethics, human nature, and the value of life. There is much more to religion than the bare belief in God, good and bad; and the good might be worth studying with more than an eye to finding ammunition for ridicule.

And I am perfectly capable of being civil. I was hoping for a perfectly civil discussion with Jester in fact on the "Does God require us to be naive and stupid to accept him?" string. I hope I haven't been stood up. Again.

I don't doubt that you can be civil; you're certainly being civil here. I just regret that it seems to be something that requires so much effort from you...

[fatcat911]

What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. giving that it happened way before cameras etc were invented?

P4JC

Good question P4JC.

Hmm...........

It can't be proven. I am a Christian. I do believe he rose from the dead. On the same token how do we know that George Washington was a real person. Have any of you seen him. How do we know that anyone before us existed. I have no proof Jesus existed. I also have no proof he did not.

[McCulloch]

It can't be proven. I am a Christian. I do believe he rose from the dead.

Why do you believe that?

On the same token how do we know that George Washington was a real person.

We have sufficient evidence from a variety of sources.

Have any of you seen him. How do we know that anyone before us existed.

The historical method. We cannot know, like we we know mathematics. We assess probabilities.

I have no proof Jesus existed. I also have no proof he did not.

Then it would be best to remain agnostic. Wouldn't it?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

cnorman 18 wrote:

One of the things I find hard to take about this place, to be honest, is precisely that sort of attitude. Both sides (so to speak) in this debate are so focused on proving each other wrong, ridiculous, or evil that no one takes a moment to see what we might have to learn from each other.


Tired of the Nonsense answers:

I don't think theists are evil cnorman, simply trapped in the ignorance of their supernatural programming.


cnorman 18 wrote:

I don't doubt that you can be civil; you're certainly being civil here. I just regret that it seems to be something that requires so much effort from you...


Tired of the Nonsense answers:

When my true nature seeps through I am counting on you to point it out to me cnorman.

[Pastor4Jesus]

I may of too much liberty with the assumption that the atheist readership would even admit that the crucifixion happened! So maybe we should present evidence for that first?

You would be correct. Please proceed with the evidence that the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth by the Romans actually happened.

First we must agree that Jesus existed as a historical person. If we don’t agree with that we don’t have a debate for even the crucifixion of Jesus. So this is a conversation for those that agree that the historical Jesus existed. I would ask that everyone that responds indicate if they believe in an historical* Jesus. If the answer is 'no' I think someone should create another thread to debate if Jesus existed at all.

~ onward christian and non christian soldiers and we all are in a battle for souls whether we realize it or not.

I would argue that the gospels themselves are evidence for the crucifixion but debating the that topic (defending the Gospels) of this is beyond this threads intent and scope. So I will simply say that personally it satisfies me that the gospels agree with written history, and are not debunked in the historical extra biblical writings. Ie when Taticus and others wrote about Jesus they were not debunked as liars etc by those that had a vested interest in doing those things.

So lets visit some extra biblical sources as an addition to the Gospels. For example , the writings from Jewish Rabbis (circa A.D. 40-180) in the Talmud and other Jewish writings refer to Jesus Christ, i.e., They described ‘his “hanging� (on a cross) on the eve of Passover, His identification along with the names of five of His disciples, certain healings in His name and scoffing at the “claim� that He was born of a virgin‘ in other words they were implying His birth was probably “illegitimate.� Were these writings false? Now as we get answers and comments I may not answer all and will compile the negative responses to show how they do not represent truth but rather an concerted calculated effort to discredit historical events.

P4JC

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

[Pastor4Jesus]

"With all due respect", that's a stupid, inflammatory statement.

I would counter that it may be a " stupid, inflammatory statement" only for those that lack the intellect to know the difference between sarcasm and someone being serious.

Vague prophecies are unverifiable.

Precise prophesies are not possible (if one wants to retain free will) by an all knowing GID (My term for God the Intelligent Designer).

Does the Bible name Russia specifically, or does it just mention some army from the north?

The bible has several books of prophesy. What I was speaking of was a pre- Armageddon strike against Israel by Russia and a middle eastern nation. In other words if Africa invaded Israel that would not be in the prophesy.

This is important because while we're all watching Russia, Lichtenstein could be ready to pounce!

"With all due respect", that's a stupid, inflammatory statement."

P4JC