Even IF the resurrection is true..

[Elijah John]

Even if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, what does that prove?

For even Paul indicates that it was God who did raising, Jesus did not resurrect himself:

Romans 10.9

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Even if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, what does that prove?

For even Paul indicates that it was God who did raising, Jesus did not resurrect himself:

Romans 10.9

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Paul seems to have genuinely believed that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Paul also believed that he saw dead people. Surely a little skepticism is warranted when it comes to what Paul believed.

[Elijah John]

Even if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, what does that prove?

For even Paul indicates that it was God who did raising, Jesus did not resurrect himself:

Romans 10.9

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Paul seems to have genuinely believed that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Paul also believed that he saw dead people. Surely a little skepticism is warranted when it comes to what Paul believed.

So assuming that Paul was justified in believing in the resurrection, that it actually happened, what would it prove?

Would it prove that "Jesus was God"? Or that he died to "pay for" our sins?

Or only that God raised him from the dead.

[marco]

If it were true that 70 or 80 years after Caesar was assassinated in Rome, God raised a corpse to life, we would be left wondering why he surrounding the event in such doubt, choosing a corner of that vast empire to perform the miracle. If it were to prove he exists, given how many don't believe, through poor evidence, then he failed. There seems no rhyme or reason to performing this advanced piece of magic. A saner explanation would be that some clever people got together to perform a hoax. Through the centuries the world has been fooled by hoaxers - such as Piltdown Man or famous art frauds. If Occam were called into the room and presented with the God explanation of a miracle or the possibility of a hoax, I wonder which one he'd choose.

However, even IF it is true, it suggests Jesus was exceptionally special, but not God himself. Why would he need to be? Was Lazarus God just because he rose from the dead?

[Willum]

That he joins an surprisingly long list of people who have returned from the dead, and will take you to heaven if you make the right sacrifices to the right god-du-jour.

[JP Cusick]

Even if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, what does that prove?

For even Paul indicates that it was God who did raising, Jesus did not resurrect himself:

Romans 10.9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Rising from the dead proves not much to me.

There is an interesting theory that Jesus was resuscitated from the dead, because the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus in His side and out came water mixed with blood, John 19:34, and that could mean the spear drained the fluid from Jesus heart or lungs and thereby the spear medically saved His life.

This is far more likely what really happened, and to the 1st century mentality a resuscitation is still a resurrection.

It goes on that Jesus laid three days in the tomb to recover some strength and doubting Thomas saw real wounds in Jesus and then 40 days later Jesus died from the injuries as said He ascended into heaven as a fancy way of saying He died for real and permanently this time after the 40 days.

It would still be seen and reported honestly as God raised Jesus from the dead.

[marco]

Rising from the dead proves not much to me.

Well it IS a tiny bit unusual, don't you think?

doubting Thomas saw real wounds in Jesus

Yes, it is odd that Jesus, in his glorified body, was still left with his wounds. One would imagine that if you're going to go all the way to revive a corpse, you might as well brush it up a bit. Of course the wounds may have been left as a clever technicality just in case somebody called the bluff and asked to see the holes.

He ascended into heaven is a fancy way of saying He died for real and permanently this time after the 40 days.

It is a primitive way of suggesting that heaven is in the upper atmosphere, as was widely supposed. That Jesus endorsed this superstition by actually rising theatrically into the clouds, in defiance of gravitational laws, suggests either a very indulgent, far-sighted and remarkably powerful deity at work or, less likely, a made-up story.

600 years later, still on the assumption that God's office is in the sky, Muhammad is said to have taken a winged horse, Buraq, to have a conversation with Allah, meeting Jesus and other prophets on the way; so if we judge by Islamic tradition, Jesus seems to have arrived safely in his ascension.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to marco in post #7]
The proven fact that Mohammed on Pegasus met Jesus in heaven, only gives evidence to Christs ascension not resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

I gotta say that IF the resurrection was demonstrably true or even a credible claim, I wonder whether the debate would even be going on. Well, perhaps it would, but it would be the atheists in the position of faithjbased denial of the evidence.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #9]
But what would make the resurrection demonstrably true or even a credible claim ?

Still, why is there no better evidence?

I think the question is rather: why do we only have such extremely bad to non existent evidence?

Some witnesses for the actual resurrection or at the very least a detailed gospel narrative or pauline letter of it would come in so handy!