Resurrection proved in US courts

[Tired of the Nonsense]

post #13
If all the proof of the resurrection were to be offered to a jury, they would found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true.
There was a book by David Limbaugh, (JESUS on trial) a New York Times best seller. He used his expertise as an attorney to see if there was eneough evidence about JESUS to be true. As an excellent attorney, he said a jury would be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt that JESUS story is true.
He then was convicted of faith.
As why GOD planned it the way HE did is because it was the perfect plan, to save all HE could and that all scripture was fullfied as HE promised. I think that our creator who created all things from the beginning has all of out best interests at heart.

viewtopic.php?p=861069#861069

We will be the jury. All Christians are invited to participate. Present your case and allow us to see for ourselves just how well it holds up.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]
The evangelists and St.Paul supposedly didnt describe the supposed hoaxers hoaxes to write detailed true appearances, but to suffice their agenda.
Later this scriptures might have undergone more changes by censoric writers with also agendas.
Therefore its no miracle that the storys differ.

Paul doesn't really say anything about it, so He's no help.

Wait! What? What do you mean?
Paul says nothing about risen Christ appearances?

viewtopic.php?t=39513

No. Paul says virtually nothing about all that Jesus supposedly did and said all through his mission. Only that single quote on the night he was handed over for a sacrificial death. Ist Cor of course lists the appearances of the risen Jesus after that death, but that is really the sum of what Paul tells us. Please feel free to prompt my memory about anything else that doesn't amount to theological speculation.

[christian001]

There are many undisputable evidences of the resurrection https://www.explainchristianity.com/why ... -the-dead/

[TRANSPONDER]

There are many undisputable evidences of the resurrection https://www.explainchristianity.com/why ... -the-dead/

You will have to make a better case than posting a couple of apologetics videos and expecting us to do all the work.

YOU post 1-- 10 best reasons why the evidence for the resurrection is compelling and I will undertake to address them.

[TRANSPONDER]

There are many undisputable evidences of the resurrection https://www.explainchristianity.com/why ... -the-dead/

Ok. Our pal cannot be bothered to watch the viseos and set out the points. It took me 20 minutes.

(1) Jesus died on the cross. Maybe not. The swoon theory actually fits the evidence better than the resurrection.
(2) tomb was sealed - Matthew's tomb guard is actually questionable.
(3)The Jews said the body was stolen. This could be something the Jews made up to refute the claim the Christians were making. In fact Stobel's video suggests this.
(4) the resurrection accounts are not reliable. This is the nub on my case and argument (not the mainstream) that the gospel accounts are not trustworthy.
(5)the success of the early church does not prove it true. None of those who heard the claims knew whether they were true or not. It is plainly a nonsensical argument. Sure, it shows the appeal of Christianity but not the truth of it. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam didn't do so bad in making converts, either.
(6) Strobel's video. Did Jesus die? Probably, and the resurrection stories are demonstrably invented (that's my case) But if it was a swoon (induced) the evidence suggests a plan to save Jesus alive.
(7) actually Josephus records saving a pal from the cross. And Jesus wasn't on the cross for long. There was really no way that he should be dead. John says that the legs had to be broken because they were still alive.
(8) I do not trust Strobel even in his personal claims. He mentions a 'creed' within months of the resurrection but he doesn't explain what this is. 'pure gold' but no explanation? I'd suggest it is a fudged claim based on taking Christian claims as true, not on any real evidence.
(9) empty tomb. Strobel suggests the Jews made up the 'stolen' story to refute the Christian claim. They could hardly know that the resurrection was true or we are talking denial in the face of facts.
(1)claim of confirmation of the resurrection in 9 cases in and out of the Bible. Strobel does not give them. Aside from the dubious Flavian testament they are just the 4 Gospels and Paul (that I know of), and I argue that Paul clearly is not backing up the gospel resurrection with his remarks in the one Corinthian.

The same arguments are made again and again. They are persuasive arguments on the face of it, but (or so I argue) they bank on the accounts being credited as reliable. I also argue that the actual evidence supports a 'swoon' theory better than an actual resurrection. This is NOT a common case, but I think it could be. I think it can be proven, but even if not I assert that it fits better and explains more than the Christian interpretation does.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense in post #1]
Impossible! Tradition shows that one must be a reporter (Lee Strobel), retired detective or attorney to conclusively make a case and give a verdict about the truth of the resurrection.

That's gold, Jerry. Gold!