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?

[katiej49]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

[Cogitoergosum]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

There are people today who see aliens, would you consider their testimony reliable?

[Zzyzx]

if those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

Cute response. However, if only close associates saw someone do something (or claimed to have), is it wise to accept their word? If several members of a street gang say that their leader did or did not do something, is their word as convincing as if several respected members of the community who have no interest in the matter (but were in position to observe) said the same thing?

The question remains, "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."

[katiej49]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

There are people today who see aliens, would you consider their testimony reliable?

we are not discussing aliens. if those who saw Him are not reliable testimony, would the testimony of someone who just heard about it be sufficient? please try to keep the question asked in mind. thanks, not trying to be rude, but answering like that is pointless....

[katiej49]

if those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

Cute response. However, if only close associates saw someone do something (or claimed to have), is it wise to accept their word? If several members of a street gang say that their leader did or did not do something, is their word as convincing as if several respected members of the community who have no interest in the matter (but were in position to observe) said the same thing?

if they had no interest in the matter, why would they even mention it? they wouldnt. why would they be in the position to "observe" if they had zip interest in the whole deal? they wouldnt even be around.

The question remains, "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."

the early historians which i know you reject them too....they were not Christians so why would they mention it...they are "impartial"......you reject them too...so you've rejected the impartial and the close associates.....who else is there??

[Cogitoergosum]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

There are people today who see aliens, would you consider their testimony reliable?

we are not discussing aliens. if those who saw Him are not reliable testimony, would the testimony of someone who just heard about it be sufficient? please try to keep the question asked in mind. thanks, not trying to be rude, but answering like that is pointless....

i'm not deaf, so don't shout. lol.
Answering like that is not pointless, it is intended to point out the fallacy in your argument. People with vested interest are not reliable.

[Cogitoergosum]

if those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

Cute response. However, if only close associates saw someone do something (or claimed to have), is it wise to accept their word? If several members of a street gang say that their leader did or did not do something, is their word as convincing as if several respected members of the community who have no interest in the matter (but were in position to observe) said the same thing?

if they had no interest in the matter, why would they even mention it? they wouldnt. why would they be in the position to "observe" if they had zip interest in the whole deal? they wouldnt even be around.

The question remains, "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."

the early historians which i know you reject them too....they were not Christians so why would they mention it...they are "impartial"......you reject them too...so you've rejected the impartial and the close associates.....who else is there??

What historian who lived when jesus lived mentioned him?

[katiej49]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

There are people today who see aliens, would you consider their testimony reliable?

we are not discussing aliens. if those who saw Him are not reliable testimony, would the testimony of someone who just heard about it be sufficient? please try to keep the question asked in mind. thanks, not trying to be rude, but answering like that is pointless....

i'm not deaf, so don't shout. lol.
Answering like that is not pointless, it is intended to point out the fallacy in your argument. People with vested interest are not reliable.

didnt mean to holler, have trouble with the quote thingy....you didnt answer the questions by responding with a comment about aliens. i ask again......if those who SAW Him are not reliable, and someone who heard about it second hand certainly wouldnt be reliable, who would be?

[katiej49]

if those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

Cute response. However, if only close associates saw someone do something (or claimed to have), is it wise to accept their word? If several members of a street gang say that their leader did or did not do something, is their word as convincing as if several respected members of the community who have no interest in the matter (but were in position to observe) said the same thing?

if they had no interest in the matter, why would they even mention it? they wouldnt. why would they be in the position to "observe" if they had zip interest in the whole deal? they wouldnt even be around.

The question remains, "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."

the early historians which i know you reject them too....they were not Christians so why would they mention it...they are "impartial"......you reject them too...so you've rejected the impartial and the close associates.....who else is there??

What historian who lived when jesus lived mentioned him?

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?