Are there any evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

[otseng]

One of the key beliefs of Christianity that sets it apart from all other religions is that Jesus rose from the dead. No other religious founder has risen from the dead.

The Bible is clear that Jesus rose from the dead. But, are there any other evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead?

[CanadianBuddhist]

Jesus was revived after he was taken off the cross. I've heard this from many different places. Being suspended spread eagle style on the cross makes it impossible to take a full breath of air but crucifixion wouldn't kill. Being crucified would put a person into a state of extreme exhaution until they sank into a coma where their breathing would become shallower and shallower until eventually you could say they died of suffocation. It used to be that when a person was crucified, they would have their legs broken before they were removed to give an extra shock to the body, which would kill them. But it was specifically stated that jesus' legs were not broken when he was removed and his body did not get that extra shock so he could have been revived. When jesus was removed from the cross, no one said it was a dead body. his unconsicous body was taken away by the Essenes who had an incredible knowledge of life and death and they knew how to revive a person. They used pungent aromatics to revive Jesus' unconscious body. This is how the myth got started.

[Abs like J']

As a person who questions the overall historicity of Jesus, I would just like to say that I doubt that he knowingly or unknowingly feigned death to be revived by the Essenes at a later date. In response to the question, to my knowledge there are no primary sources detailing his alleged life, death or resurrection to begin with. The Gospels were written later by unknown authors and by their very structure suggest at best a story of hearsay, if not outright imagination.

The unknown authorship of the Gospels aside for a moment, their different accounts of the matter immediately call into question their truthfulness for me...

Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:27-32 says that hanging on the cross Jesus is taunted by both men crucified with him; Luke 23:39-43 on the other hand presents the happier, more cited account of one man taunting while the other appeals to Jesus. John 19 is silent about the behavior of those crucified with Jesus.

Regarding the resurrection, Mark 16:1-8 says that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go after sunrise to the tomb where they discover that the stone has already been rolled away and are informed of Jesus's return to life by a single man in white.

Contrary to this, John 20:1-12 tells us that Mary Magdalene alone approached the tomb while still dark and fled upon discovering the stone had been rolled away. Rather than return with Mary the mother of James and Salome, she returns instead with Simon Peter and another disciple. The two disciples leave Mary Magdalene alone to discover not a single man in white but two angels in white who do not inform her of anything.

Luke 24:1-12 references merely a group of women visiting the tomb, later identifying them in the tenth verse as Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the others. It is they who are approached and spoken to by two men in white about the whereabouts of Jesus.

Painting still a different picture, Matthew 28:1-10 says that only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary go to the tomb where the rock is still in place. Upon arriving at the tomb there is a violent earthquake and a single angel rolls back the rock and sits on it.

From the start of this topic:

The Bible is clear that Jesus rose from the dead. But, are there any other evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead?

It seems to me by these varying accounts that while the Bible does say Jesus died and rose from the dead, it is less than clear about the supposed circumstances of both events (not to mention earlier aspects of his alleged life). I know of no other evidence that Jesus or any other prophet was resurrected from the dead -- certainly none that is anything short of unreliable hearsay or proclamations of faith. Even the Gospels themselves appear unreliable hearsay (at best) or imagination.

[Corvus]

Jesus was revived after he was taken off the cross. I've heard this from many different places. Being suspended spread eagle style on the cross makes it impossible to take a full breath of air but crucifixion wouldn't kill. Being crucified would put a person into a state of extreme exhaution until they sank into a coma where their breathing would become shallower and shallower until eventually you could say they died of suffocation. It used to be that when a person was crucified, they would have their legs broken before they were removed to give an extra shock to the body, which would kill them. But it was specifically stated that jesus' legs were not broken when he was removed and his body did not get that extra shock so he could have been revived. When jesus was removed from the cross, no one said it was a dead body. his unconsicous body was taken away by the Essenes who had an incredible knowledge of life and death and they knew how to revive a person. They used pungent aromatics to revive Jesus' unconscious body. This is how the myth got started.

Nuh uh. I may not be a Christian, but I do believe in the existence of Christ and at least some of the events of his life, and having been brought up Roman Catholic, I'm familiar with the events detailed in the bible. The problem with this hypothesis - I won't credit it by calling it a theory, because it's highly speculative - is that the gospels mentioned Longinus piercing the side of Christ to see if he was dead, and water and blood flowed from the wound. What this means is that the heart had ceased to pump, so the blood was coagulating and separating from the water, becoming two substances instead of one. So, yes, he was a corpse when they took him off the cross IF you believe the gospel wasn't fabricated or an embellishment on real events written by bright individuals looking for social reform.

But I must echo Abs' words. We only have secondary sources, no primary sources. I believe we do have evidence from Roman records making mention of the execution, but as far as I know, there's nothing further. All we have are the accounts of a few witnesses passed from generation to generation. That's all we have to piece together the true story, like detectives.

[otseng]

The most compelling evidence for me that Jesus rose from the dead is the Shroud of Turin. I've started a thread to debate this.

[Corvus]

The most compelling evidence for me that Jesus rose from the dead is the Shroud of Turin. I've started a thread to debate this.

How is the shroud that Jesus was wrapped in compelling evidence he rose from the dead? It seems to be compelling evidence he existed and died.

[Abs like J']

I'm not sure why you started an entirely separate thread about the Shroud of Turin, otseng. There is as yet no question to discuss there and if you wanted merely to present it as possible evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus, it seems this thread would have been the one to present it in.

While the Shroud of Turin is indeed an interesting artifact of some kind, questions abound since chemical dating tests placed its origin in approximately the 14th century. The inability of researchers to adequately examine and study the cloth due to Catholic protection certainly hasn't helped in seeking conclusive answers.

Assuming for a moment that the dating was wrong and the shroud is not only older than presumed, but also the burial shroud of a demigod by the name of Jesus -- as all Christian believers must do -- we'd be met with yet another case of glaring Biblical errancy. In addition to internal differences within the Bible accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, assuming the shroud to be authentic would present us with an external contradiction of John 19:40 and John 20:6-7.

It seems a Christian looking for support in faith at the shroud must either accept the shroud and admit Biblical errancy in at least one of the Gospels, or accept the Gospels (however conflicting amongst themselves) and reject the shroud.

Even then, working under the assumption that the cloth was used in wrapping a man named Jesus -- a man we'll assume to have been the son of a god or at least magical in some form -- the cloth makes no testimony about whether the body depicted left the cloth of its own free will (alive or "undead"), whether it vanished in an ambiguous burst of unknown energy or whether it was pillaged by unknown agents. While it is perhaps testimony of a person flogged and crucified, it offers no testimony regarding the state of the "person" upon their presumed departure from the cloth. In short, it offers no testimony of a resurrection.

[otseng]

I'm not sure why you started an entirely separate thread about the Shroud of Turin, otseng.

I started a new thread on the shroud because it's a huge topic in itself. And I think it merits discussion in it's own thread.

I'll address your shroud questions in that topic.

There is as yet no question to discuss there.

You're right, I had the question in the title, but not in the post. I've corrected it.

[otseng]

How is the shroud that Jesus was wrapped in compelling evidence he rose from the dead? It seems to be compelling evidence he existed and died.

By the way the image got on the cloth. I'm not exactly sure what happened when he was resurrected, but he must've emitted some sort of energy to have created the image. I'll explain this more in the other topic.

[otseng]

It seems to me by these varying accounts that while the Bible does say Jesus died and rose from the dead, it is less than clear about the supposed circumstances of both events (not to mention earlier aspects of his alleged life).

Those are interesting points of discrepencies that you brought up surrounding the events that happened with Mary, Salome, Simon Peter, Joanna, angels, etc. But, the main point of this thread is the evidence of Jesus' resurrection.

Perhaps start another thread on those discrepencies? (As you can tell, I like having topics that try to stay within one subject matter)