Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: What is your verdict?

[Nick Hallandale]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
I want you to consider the eyewitness testimony and decide if Jesus of Nazareth arose from the dead, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concerning the supposedly resurrected Jesus consider the following scriptures.

Luke 24:16 NAS
"""But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him."""

Luke 24:37 KJV
""But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.""

Matthew 28:17 KJV
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

John 20:14 KJV
""And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.""

John 21:4 KJV
""But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.""

After his supposed resurrection, Jesus only showed himself to his own followers according to the Bible. You would expect that his followers would be able to recognize him after his resurrection. But look again at the scriptures you just read. Jesus own followers didn't recognize him.
Pay special attention to the following...Matthew 28:16-17 KJV
16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

""" eleven disciples """ """but some doubted"""
After spending years traveling, eating, sleeping, talking, etc with Jesus, some of his closest disciples were doubtful that this was him.

Perhaps they were deceived by an imposter and Jesus was dead? After all nobody actually saw him rise from the dead.

Perhaps one of Jesus' brothers were taking his place to keep Jesus' ministry alive?

In a court room an identification requires 100% accuracy.
As a juror would you accept the identification of the supposedly resurrected Jesus beyond a reasonable doubt?

[1John2_26]

Christianity is NOT self-evident. If a person grew up alone on an island, they would never conclude that the one God came to Earth as a man called Jesus, who died so that some people would not go to a place of torment called Hell, then rose and went back up to Heaven. Those are all conclusions one draws from reading a 2000 year old book that was written by adherants of a particular theological perspective, not from hard physical evidence. To use scripture passages as if they were irrefutable proof is simply faulty logic.

The person on the island would be far more than likely to believe in a Deity than to think up an atheist mindset. People have to be taught to be atheistic. Too.The recorded history of mankind proves this. The "conclusions" one draws from the Bible come from testing it with a rational mind and accepting or rejecting the evidence in the Bible/Gospels and New Testament.

Again, the whole question of the Resurrection hinges entirely on the authority a person ascribes to the Bible.

Agreed. Not always having anything to do with "faith." History speaks well of the Gospels.

Granting something authority and establishing a truth are not the same thing.

Unless it is rational to do so. Many people put authority in a bunch of words written on papaer by traitors to King George. It is rational to reject those words as well. The country called England id proof of that. As well as every "other" country not called the United States of America. People weighed the evidence and "teachings" of the framers and decided it was a legitimate idea to follow the truth of it all. Did anyone question the writers of the Constitution? They were traitors all. Many died for what they believed was the truth. Some denied it and didn't follow.

If they were, then by this logic I should be able to 'prove' that Peter Pan existed based on internal evidence within that book.

By testing the reality in Peter Pan. On further review a thinking person finds out what's in it.

In addition, there are hundreds of other religious texts that claim to be divinely inspired- why aren't those who defend the Bible as the final word on all truth defending those texts as well?

The Bible counters them. It claims to be "NOT" be the same thing. It claims to be true and the others correct or false but still, not written with the "real God" in authority directing them.

From a non-Christian perspective, comparing one religious text to another is like comparing apples with apples. You cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt with only circumstantial internal evidence. Citing a 2000 year old document written by a religious order is proof of NOTHING, except what the people who wrote those documents believed.

External evidence in the Bible shows that the writers wrote down events in real places and real times. It can be studied outside of religious proselytizing. The Bible has much support upon studying it.

To have faith in the Bible is a perfectly reasonable option for someone to choose, as are many other world-views that do not directly harm others- but Christians must realize that unless someone is debating how to interpret a Bible passage, there is no gravity in using scripture passages to 'prove' something is 'the truth' to a non-Christian.

100% correct. But Christian apologists use other evidences to prove the worth of Biblical texts. It infuriates the infidels.org guys and their fan club but the Christian apologists stand tall.

The Bible is just a book to myself and many others.

The Bible does not hide that.

Saying that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible said so depends ENTIRELY on the authority a person ascribes to the Bible.

Correct again.

Someone's faith in a religious book is not strong enough evidence for anyone to provide a final 'verdict' on this issue. It's a matter of faith, not forensics.

Wrong. The events recorded about the crucifixion and what and how Jesus suffered is supported by forensics. But still skeptics will do the skeptical thing. It brings them joy.

DEATH OF JESUS

Two aspects of Jesus' death have been the source of great controversy, namely, the nature of the wound in his side (4,6) and the cause of his death after only several hours on the cross. (13-17).

The gospel of John describes the piercing of Jesus' side and emphasizes the sudden flow of blood and water. (1) Some authors have interpreted the flow of water to be ascites (12) or urine, from an abdominal midline perforation of the bladder. (15) However, the Greek word (pleura (32,35,,36) used by John clearly denoted laterality and often implied the ribs. (6,32,36)

Therefore, it seems probable that the wound was in the thorax and well away from the abdominal midline.

Although the side of the wound was not designated by John, it traditionally has been depicted on the right side. (4) Supporting this traditions is the fact that a large flow of blood would be more likely with a perforation of the distended and thin-walled right atrium or ventricle than the thick-walled and contracted left ventricle. Although the side of the wound may never be established with certainty, the right seems more probable than the left.

Some of the skepticism in accepting John's description has arisen from the difficulty in explaining, with medical accuracy, the flow of both blood and water. Part of this difficulty has been based on the assumption that the blood appeared first, then the water. However, in the ancient Greek, the order of words generally denoted prominence and not necessarily a time sequence. (37) Therefore, it seems likely that John was emphasizing the prominence of blood rather than its appearance preceding the water.

Therefore, the water probably represented serous pleural and pericardial fluid, (5-7,11) and would have preceded the flow of blood and been smaller in volume than the blood. Perhaps in the setting of hypovolemia and impending acute heart failure, pleural and pericardial effusions may have developed and would have added to the volume of apparent water. (5,11) The blood, in contrast, may have originated from the right atrium or the right ventricle or perhaps from a hemopericardium. (5,7,11)

Jesus' death after only three to six hours on the cross surprised even Pontius Pilate. (1) The fact that Jesus cried out in a loud voice and then bowed his head and died suggests the possibility of a catastrophic terminal event. One popular explanation has been that Jesus died of cardiac rupture. In the setting of the scourging and crucifixion, with associated hypovolemia, hypoxemia, and perhaps and altered coagulable state, friable non-infective thrombotic vegetations could have formed on the aortic or mitral valve. These then could have dislodged and embolized into the coronary circulation and thereby produced an acute transmural myocardial infarction. Thrombotic valvular vegetations have been reported to develop under analogous acute traumatic conditions. (39) Rupture of the left ventricular free wall may occur, though uncommonly, in the first few hours following infarction. (40)

However, another explanation may be more likely. Jesus' death may have been hastened simply by his state of exhaustion and by the severity of the scourging, with its resultant blood loss and preshock state. (7) The fact that he could not carry his patibulum supports this interpretation. The actual cause of Jesus' death, like that of other crucified victims, may have been multifactorial and related primarily to hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia, and perhaps acute heart failure. (2,3,5-7,10,11) A fatal cardiac arrhythmia may have accounted for the apparent catastrophic terminal event.

Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.

Why isn't it enough for you to choose to believe it- why do you have to convince myself and all others that it's true?

Why the need to destroy Christians and Christianity? Christians are only defending their positions from those that are intolerant of them.

I could accept what you are proposing ONLY by faith, why take it to trial when it will NEVER be an established fact to those who do not believe that the Bible is true?

Even though Jesus could, many Christians cannot fathom people that do not believe the truth of Chrsianity.

Is it really a prudent exercise to spin one's wheels trying to prove a belief?

Defending it is the right and duty of the Christian to defend themselves and their fellow-Christians.

[bernee51]

In addition, there are hundreds of other religious texts that claim to be divinely inspired- why aren't those who defend the Bible as the final word on all truth defending those texts as well?

The Bible counters them. It claims to be "NOT" be the same thing. It claims to be true and the others correct or false but still, not written with the "real God" in authority directing them.

You will need to re-write this so I, a mere mortal, can understand what you are trying to say

External evidence in the Bible shows that the writers wrote down events in real places and real times. ... The Bible has much support upon studying it.

You (and otehrs) keep claiming this but you (and others) have yet to provide any evidence of this. Do you believe "because I say so" is enough to justify your claims.

But Christian apologists use other evidences to prove the worth of Biblical texts.

Put up or shut up I say. Some of this irrefutable evidence would be great to see. This evidence is as mythical as the bible.

Saying that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible said so depends ENTIRELY on the authority a person ascribes to the Bible.

Correct again.

Great - I ascribe it no authority, therefore Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Someone's faith in a religious book is not strong enough evidence for anyone to provide a final 'verdict' on this issue. It's a matter of faith, not forensics.

Wrong. The events recorded about the crucifixion and what and how Jesus suffered is supported by forensics.

Forensics? Forensics? You're joking. Using information from the bible to prove the bible. You know what that is called in the science of logic, don't you. It is the prime tool of apologists.

DEATH OF JESUS

Apologetic ponderings deleted.

Why the need to destroy Christians and Christianity? Christians are only defending their positions from those that are intolerant of them.

The christian message can be seen in it's finest without the concretizatrion of Jesus.

[Joe Blackbird]

Thanks for your response 1John2_26.

The person on the island would be far more than likely to believe in a Deity than to think up an atheist mindset. People have to be taught to be atheistic. Too.The recorded history of mankind proves this. The "conclusions" one draws from the Bible come from testing it with a rational mind and accepting or rejecting the evidence in the Bible/Gospels and New Testament.

A person MAY come to believe in a deity or in deities- but not in YHWH and his son Yeshua. That person would need a Bible to come to that conclusion since there is nothing in nature that reveals the existence of those PARTICULAR personalities, which is why we have so many world religions. Many other religions believe in a deity or in deities, are you willing to recognize them as being true in addition to Christianity? Many have religious texts as well, does the fact that they have it in writing make their religion legitimate? If I can apply your arguments to defend other religions, then why can't you? How do I test Heaven, Hell, YHWH, salvation, angels, Satan, demon-possession and miracles with a 'rational mind'? Suppose I was an alien life-form and came to visit Earth- could you show me an example of these things? If I rejected them as unprovable, would you understand why, or would you get upset and try to prove me wrong- even though you could provide no hard evidence that they exist beyond the shadow of a doubt to any 'rational' person. Would it not be more 'rational' to accept my grounds for rejecting them, despite the fact that you personally choose to believe they are true? Convictions are not evidence, a 'rational mind' can accept this.

Granting something authority and establishing a truth are not the same thing.

Unless it is rational to do so. Many people put authority in a bunch of words written on papaer by traitors to King George. It is rational to reject those words as well. The country called England id proof of that. As well as every "other" country not called the United States of America. People weighed the evidence and "teachings" of the framers and decided it was a legitimate idea to follow the truth of it all. Did anyone question the writers of the Constitution? They were traitors all. Many died for what they believed was the truth. Some denied it and didn't follow.

It IS rational to grant authority to a PROVEN truth, but my granting it authority does not MAKE something true. The sun is the center of our solar system- this is a truth, no matter what my opinion is. Genesis says that the Earth (day one) existed before God created the Sun (day four) and the stars (day four)- this is NOT a truth, no matter what my belief is. Again, a 'rational mind' can accept this. Talking serpents, invisible gods, winged celestial beings, sticks turning into snakes, talking donkeys, time standing still for a day, demon possession causing epilepsy, the dead coming back to life, a man-god saving a chosen group of people by dying and coming back to life, a demon who controls an underground torture chamber that is nowhere to be found geographically, a place of bliss and happiness that is nowhere to be found geographically- this is a bit harder for a 'rational mind' to accept as truth. Please explain how any of these things are rational.

If they were, then by this logic I should be able to 'prove' that Peter Pan existed based on internal evidence within that book.

By testing the reality in Peter Pan. On further review a thinking person finds out what's in it.

Could I not use your same argument against your own position? By testing the reality in the Bible I have found that it contradicts reality in several instances (some of which I have already listed on this post). I believed in the Bible for years, then I read it several times and realized (to my surprise) that I had made a mistake putting my complete trust in something I had not fully examined. I know better now. This is my plea to you and to all others who would enter this debate- just sit down and read it as a book. Let the text speak for itself. Look at how God deals with people in it. Look at the claims it makes and the fears it provokes. Yes, there is much good there as well- but as a whole, can you really accept it ALL as absolute truth?

I love many of Jesus' teachings. I think he was on the right track about many things- but how can I love my neighbor as myself when I am commanded by God to smash his head in with a rock if he is gay? Jesus is recorded in Matthew as saying (Mat 5:18) 'For truly, I say to you, UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.' Heaven and Earth still (apparently) exist... so, how can I love my daughter, when I am selling her as a slave? (Leviticus) How can I love my enemies when God commands me to kill them and rape their women because they are pagans? (All throughout the OT) How can I apply the commandment, 'Thou shall not kill...', when I am running a sword through my brother for worshipping a golden calf? (Exodus) How can I 'honor my Mother and Father', when Jesus tells me I must hate them before coming to him? (Luke) How can I be expected to be more kind than the God I am serving is? A God who rains sulfur on cities (Genesis). A God who kills a woman for turning around (Lot's wife)? A God who allows Satan do destroy an innocent man's family (Job)? A God who requires a pregnant woman to drink muddy water to prove her innocence (Leviticus)? A God who punishes all generations to Hell because a man and woman ate a piece of fruit (Genesis)? How can the peacemakers be 'blessed', when different beliefs about God are one of the chief causes of war on our planet? (Matthew)

I sympathize with those who try to lead good lives, love God and treat their neighbors with love and respect, and there are many, many Christians who do just that- but that is NOT the TOTALITY of the biblical message. To read the Bible is to KNOW that it is not SIMPLY an exhortation to love. I wish that it were, I would follow it without requiring any proof if it simply said to 'love God and man'. To read the Bible is to be faced with a choice- do I accept this as it really is, or do I not? I have chosen the humane and logical position. I do believe in a brilliant creative force behind all of life- but I cannot believe every word in the Bible is true. Hard as it may be to believe, I do read from the Bible often- and not merely for ammunition against Christians. I enjoy it, but as fiction mingled with ancient history. As myth. As parable. Not as a book of facts.

In addition, there are hundreds of other religious texts that claim to be divinely inspired- why aren't those who defend the Bible as the final word on all truth defending those texts as well?

The Bible counters them. It claims to be "NOT" be the same thing. It claims to be true and the others correct or false but still, not written with the "real God" in authority directing them.

Where is this 'real God'? I do believe in an intelligent force behind all life here, but I cannot prove it- and I have no desire to. If this particular God that you mention has so much authority here, where is he? Has he appeared to you and told you that he is the 'real God', or did you choose to believe in him first and then try to build your case because you believe he is true? He has never appeared to me- why should I take your word for it?

From a non-Christian perspective, comparing one religious text to another is like comparing apples with apples. You cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt with only circumstantial internal evidence. Citing a 2000 year old document written by a religious order is proof of NOTHING, except what the people who wrote those documents believed.

External evidence in the Bible shows that the writers wrote down events in real places and real times. It can be studied outside of religious proselytizing. The Bible has much support upon studying it.

Support for many of it's historical references... YES. It was written as ancient history was unfolding- so it certainly reflects the events that surrounded it. It also records much of the flora and fauna of the ancient world. It records information about the Hebrew culture and of it's neighbors. It records the passions and prejudices of it's time and people- as does MOST literature, even works of fiction. The Bible uses history as it's context, but many of it's themes, stories, theological positions and primitive 'scientific' observations are either flawed or un-provable.

Someone's faith in a religious book is not strong enough evidence for anyone to provide a final 'verdict' on this issue. It's a matter of faith, not forensics.

Wrong. The events recorded about the crucifixion and what and how Jesus suffered is supported by forensics. But still skeptics will do the skeptical thing. It brings them joy.

First of all, crucifixion is NOT a miracle- no one is suggesting that. Many have been crucified. We know that it has happened and that it leaves forensic evidence. But we are NOT debating the crucifixion- we are debating the resurrection, which goes against the laws of nature.

I don't know what you mean by 'the skeptical thing'. The Bible elicits scepticism by it's very nature- it purports to be true without proving it's claims or validating it's theological declarations.

In response to your comment, "It brings them (skeptics) joy."- Actually, I take no pleasure in being skeptical of the Bible. When I was a Christian, I had a very large community to support my point of view and a pretty happy life. Now that I am not a Christian, I have no real community and about two-thirds of the United States believes that I'm going to Hell and they are not afraid to tell me all about it. It is a miserable business to go against the grain. Unless I take pleasure in my own rejection and personal grief- I would say that your comment is baseless, juvenile and short-sighted. Put yourself in my shoes friend. You are in the majority here, not me.

Why isn't it enough for you to choose to believe it- why do you have to convince myself and all others that it's true?

Why the need to destroy Christians and Christianity? Christians are only defending their positions from those that are intolerant of them.

I HAVE NO DESIRE TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY. Let me just say that PLAINLY. Please, find an example of how I have actively sought to DESTROY Christianity. If honestly sharing my beliefs, concerns and observations is SUCH a threat to Christianity, then it certainly would not have withstood the last 2000 years of scientific discovery and human progress- but it HAS. I invite you, sir, to read the rest of my posts at this site if you are convinced that destroying Christianity is my intended goal here. In fact PLEASE DO. I think that you will find that I have actively campaigned for tolerance at this site- FOR BOTH SIDES. You are wrong, you are out of order, and you have proven that you are incapable of tolerating MY POSITION.

I do hope that Christianity continues to thrive. I believe it is a very important religion that all people should have the freedom to follow if they so choose. That being said, I have a right to assess it through the filter of my own life-experience and intelligence- as should you and every else. I am not interested in de-converting you or any other Christians- I just want solid answers to my inquiries and a platform where I can debate with others who are weighing the same issues for themselves. I am not here to destroy you. If someone tried to take YOUR right to worship away, I would be among the first to stand up and say "THAT IS NOT RIGHT". If your religion draws a line between believers and un-believers- that is not MY line. I don't think you are going to Hell- do you think I am? I do not think you are part of a plot to destroy atheists- do you think I'm trying to destroy Christians? Oh wait- you do. Sorry. Your line friend, not mine.

I could accept what you are proposing ONLY by faith, why take it to trial when it will NEVER be an established fact to those who do not believe that the Bible is true?

Even though Jesus could, many Christians cannot fathom people that do not believe the truth of Chrsianity.

There were no 'Christians' in Jesus lifetime- unless by 'Christian', you mean someone who follows the 'teachings' of Jesus. If I were to tell you that I follow Jesus' teachings, but do not believe he died for my sins and rose again- would you consider me a 'Christian' or a heretic? In fact, I do believe the majority (but not all) of what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is beneficial- but I'm surely not a Christian, right? I believe in a loving Creator as well, but I still don't qualify- do I? Jesus was gracious to Samaritans, Lepers, Prostitutes, Tax-collectors and Criminals- but his followers don't seem to be able to accept a guy who believes in God (as he understands him), treats people the way he wants to be treated and respects Jesus' teachings. Wow, this new form of 'Christianity' seems to just scream TOLERANCE.

Is it really a prudent exercise to spin one's wheels trying to prove a belief?

Defending it is the right and duty of the Christian to defend themselves and their fellow-Christians.

I am not saying you should NOT defend your faith, I am asking what the point is in trying to PROVE it is true. In other words, you have every right to believe whatever you CHOOSE and to defend it when attacked- but why do you need OTHERS to believe it is 'the truth'? Will other people agreeing with you make it more 'true'? You have a right to worship as you choose, I AM NOT SAYING OTHERWISE. But how can you PROVE a belief? It's a BELIEF! The Bible does not require that you PROVE to the world it is 'the truth'.

(Heb 11:1) 'Now faith is the assurance of things HOPED FOR, the conviction of things NOT SEEN.'

Your case should be built on faith, not evidence. If faith is not enough for you to accept your own beliefs and you need proof to believe, is it fair to blame others for not acknowledging your so-called 'proof'? If that were the case, this passage would instead read;

'Now faith is the assurance of things PROVEN, the convictions of things SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.' -which it does not.

Please, show me EVIDENCE that is 'hoped for' and 'not seen' and I will show you a talking donkey! Have a nice day.

[QED]

The person on the island would be far more than likely to believe in a Deity than to think up an atheist mindset. People have to be taught to be atheistic.

I quite agree with you. To think up an atheist mindset one first needs to be introduced to the concept of God. In any conceivable situation a person is bound to be aware of providence. In normal human society we are aware of our parents, but even casting an infant alone on an island would mean, for its survival, providing sufficient resources else it would perish before forming an opinion. So we have a particular selection effect taking place: only beings supplied with the basic requirement for life get to ponder that life.

An understandable consequence therefore, would be to imagine some ultimate parent or provider. This much I appreciate. It's a very obvious inference from everything else a person observes. But it is one that is self-selected. We know of plenty of other things that exist as unintentional by-products of other processes. Anticipating a strong reaction to to this statement I can only ask what else there is to inspire it other than a certain sense of pride. Perhaps the atheist is prepared to be humbler than the theist?

[melikio]

I HAVE NO DESIRE TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY. Let me just say that PLAINLY. Please, find an example of how I have actively sought to DESTROY Christianity. If honestly sharing my beliefs, concerns and observations is SUCH a threat to Christianity, then it certainly would not have withstood the last 2000 years of scientific discovery and human progress- but it HAS. I invite you, sir, to read the rest of my posts at this site if you are convinced that destroying Christianity is my intended goal here. In fact PLEASE DO. I think that you will find that I have actively campaigned for tolerance at this site- FOR BOTH SIDES. You are wrong, you are out of order, and you have proven that you are incapable of tolerating MY POSITION.

I do hope that Christianity continues to thrive. I believe it is a very important religion that all people should have the freedom to follow if they so choose. That being said, I have a right to assess it through the filter of my own life-experience and intelligence- as should you and every else. I am not interested in de-converting you or any other Christians- I just want solid answers to my inquiries and a platform where I can debate with others who are weighing the same issues for themselves. I am not here to destroy you. If someone tried to take YOUR right to worship away, I would be among the first to stand up and say "THAT IS NOT RIGHT". If your religion draws a line between believers and un-believers- that is not MY line. I don't think you are going to Hell- do you think I am? I do not think you are part of a plot to destroy atheists- do you think I'm trying to destroy Christians? Oh wait- you do. Sorry. Your line friend, not mine.

You are RIGHT-ON the money here.

It (to me) is a most-eloquent way of saying, "To each, his own."

Sure, being raise AS a "Christian", I naturally lean THAT way, but I would be THE GREATEST LIAR on earth, if I told anyone that I actually believe everything that I was TOLD/TAUGHT that I should believe.

Until I almost lost ALL of my faith in "Christianty" (The Religion), I was afraid or had a massive aversion to considering the real questions which many people harbor in their hearts (many "Christians" secretly do that also).

I had to literally separate myself from the "religion", to get a clearer (less-biased) view of what the heck it was I once believed in. And yes, I found myself cosidering what (oh my) "atheists" were saying about their dis/unbelief. I learned that every non-Christian is NOT anti-religion, anti-God or anti-Christian. It's interesting that in the eyes of some, that put me at-odds with other "Christians".

Honestly, it is difficult to fathom why people don't see incredible VALUE in what you say above; especially given mankind's overall history. I'm surely not anti-faith-oriented, but there is something to analyzing religion in light of the pain, suffering and death it has been a catalyst for in this world.

No, not that I BLAME x-religion, x-philosophy, or x-belief... but that the outcomes we all experience in unique and mostly universal ways, are examined while considering the mutual-benefit of such analysis. ALL PEOPLE should be willing and ready to have their "faith" examined or tested by other human beings (especially if they INSIST that THEIRS IS THE CORRECT BELIEF).

I think Jesus took a MASSIVELY DIFFERENT APPROACH, than many "Christians" tend to believe. He DID NOT force religion or "Christian" morals upon human beings; he appealed to all via the message of LOVE. Compassion and grace are what I see in Jesus. I didn't see in the Bible Jesus pulling the "control" card; that I have SADLY witnessed too many (hypocritical) Christians casually utilizing today. And that, despite Jesus having AMAZING LEVELS of righteousness AND AUTHORITY; He could have "justifiably" condemned and KILLED EVERYONE who didn't meet His Father's Standard (right on the spot, every encounter...without question). I know that Jesus got angry, beat people out of the Temple...etc. But it was nothing like the relentless villification of "secularism" which many Christians are so obsessed with today. Heck, you would think by some people's behavior, that Christians are incapable of doing anything wrong.

That wasn't how He was/is. But I have to say that I was so very discouraged by the latest neo-conservatives (who wear the "Christian" label) for their "righteousness" which are nothing more than filthy, stained rags... is so often used to smother or choke the liberty from other human beings. That instead of LIVING and promoting by true EXAMPLE, they coerce others using fear, political power and other things which I'm almost certain that Jesus Himself would NOT have approved of. Yet today, it has become popular for the PUSHING of "faith" in The Bible, God or Jesus, to be a GOOD thing. And on the surface, it can indeed look fine, just as any good "intention" may.

But this idea of PUSHING and forcing the committment of other people to one's own view of the Bible, religion or philosophy... has backfired before and WILL again. That to say, many of the REACTIONS to various JERKS who cannot allow others a unique view of reality (in fact, forcing their own views upon others), are certainly not NEW and aren't necessarily pointed AT Christianity. It is something which is bred of reciprocity; laws which are quite proven and reliable:

What you DISH OUT, is what you'll GET BACK.

Many phrases and cliches' have been coined, to express what I'm pointing out .

The reality I know is, I've seen far more people come to a position of faith, when that "faith" is NOT being PUSHED at or upon them. And it seems to me that people who possess reasonableness, faith, hope and love (all of those things together), are the people who are closest to the overall truth. Anyone claming ABSOLUTE truth (whether from the Bible to the N.Y. Times), is something that I have learned to "scrutinize", not necessarily "believe". I have a right to do that, and I will defend it for the rest of my life (where it concerns others or myself).

9/11, had a great effect upon my view of relgion (including how I wielded my own beliefs; especially my actions related to sharing those beliefs). And while it didn't make me anti-religion, it DID show me exactly why EXTREME dogma, views and attitudes are better checked, than honored by default.

-Mel-

[Nick Hallandale]

Can we believe that Jesus was killed, and buried and then three days later he was resurrected back to life?
I am confident that none of us saw him die. And I am confident that none of us saw him walking around alive after being resurrected from the dead.

The only evidence that the Christian story is true is the Bible.
According to the Bible.........
1) No one saw Jesus rise from the grave.
2) The only people who saw Jesus alive after his supposed resurrection were his own followers.
3) Even some of his own followers did not recognize him and had doubts that the person who claimed to be the resurrected Jesus was really Jesus.
4) When Jesus was alive he promised to provide his evil generation with a sign, the sign of Jonah, but he failed to show himself alive after his supposed resurrection to anyone but his followers.
5) The testimony of the gospel writers are all different and conflicting.

If you were on a jury could you accept this testimony beyond a reasonable doubt as proof that Jesus rose from the dead?

If any of you have been following this discussion you can see that I have attempted to make my point by using the Bible as evidence. In fact I have a lot more Bible evidence to show that the Bible story of the resurrection of Jesus is unreliable and doubtful to be true. I have intended to show my Bible evidence a little at a time so everyone can see it point by point. But the Christians have hijacked the discussion and turned it into a theist vs atheist debate. We all know that is a dead end. Nobody can prove there is a God nor can you prove there isn't a God.

I guess that the Christians want to believe the Jesus tale even if there is no credible evidence and the atheists just want to prove there is no God.
I hope I can convince just one person.

[Nick Hallandale]

According to Matthew, Jesus taught his followers about his supposed resurrection before his crucifixtion.
Look at the following........ Matthew 16:21 KJV
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

But compare the testimony of John right after the supposed resurrection of Jesus......John 20:9 KJV
9For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Matthew said the disciples knew.
John says the disciples didn't know.
One of these men is a liar.
How can you accept testimony fom the Bible which claims to be inspired by God when two of the key players disagree and contradict each other?

[Joe Blackbird]

melikio, thank you so much for your eloquent feedback on my post. You seem to have open eyes and a big heart- I find it refreshing to hear you call for Christians to examine their faith in light of Jesus words and actions and not merely as one is raised or instructed to.

I think those of us who believe Jesus really existed would all agree- Jesus taught people to see things with new eyes and a new heart, regardless of what others say or do. Clearly, you are a Christian who understands the complexity of the issues and someone who is willing to put yourself in another's place to see things from myriad angles. This is a mark of true wisdom. Thanks again.

[Joe Blackbird]

Hi Nick,

I really have nothing to debate about your post- good observations. I would have to agree that there is really nothing to the resurrection that would stick in a court of law. I personally think it's fine for people to believe that it happened- just as long as they don't pull the 'absolute truth' card.

To those who say there is 'proof' of the resurrection, I say this; stop trying so hard. Christianity has had 2000 years to become SCIENCE and it has NOT. It is still a religion, and religion is based on faith- not proof. The fact that something is written in the Bible means very little to those who do not venerate it as a work of absolute truth.

If any of you have been following this discussion you can see that I have attempted to make my point by using the Bible as evidence. In fact I have a lot more Bible evidence to show that the Bible story of the resurrection of Jesus is unreliable and doubtful to be true. I have intended to show my Bible evidence a little at a time so everyone can see it point by point. But the Christians have hijacked the discussion and turned it into a theist vs atheist debate. We all know that is a dead end. Nobody can prove there is a God nor can you prove there isn't a God.

I guess that the Christians want to believe the Jesus tale even if there is no credible evidence and the atheists just want to prove there is no God.
I hope I can convince just one person.

It is unfortunate, but perhaps somewhere in the polarity this topic seems to inspire- some subtlety is lost. I personally feel debates are actually more constructive when there ARE shades of grey, complexities, exceptions. The position that the Bible is true and that's that, causes a person to refuse all contrary views any validity. The same can be said for those who take a staunch anti-Christian view that rejects all things biblical at the very mention of scripture. Surely, we risk losing our objectivity when we are 'absolutely certain' of pretty much anything (at least regarding matters of faith).

Perhaps a little empathy might make things more interesting- not less. A person who is willing to see things from the perspective of someone he/she disagrees with is more likely to have a fuller view of the subject being debated. I think some of the best debaters on this forum are those who have tried one way- but were inclined to go another. Those who hold on to their 'truth' with white knuckles never learn how close they really are to their 'enemy'. Very good points Nick.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Nick Hallandale in post #1]
This is a precious thread to resurrect!

With all the research done in the OP, and also the debate that sprung from it so far.

I myself always planned to someday start a thread to debate this topic. Now I havent to, for here it is.

The BIG problem of no one recognicing Jesus at first sight I do call little brother of the other great resurrective problem; "Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection?"

And then now; "Why did no one instantly recognice the resurrected Christ?"

The Emmaus Encounter is clearly copied from an Asclepius story, as everybody knows!

But why always as a rule, no instant recognication from Christs closest comrades and co workers