112. Proofs of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

[Undeterminable]

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

[jbulletc]

Or........the authors of the bible could have made it all up like the authors of other religious texts.

[riian1946]

@jbulletc Unlike all the other religious texts Christianity centres on events and eye-witnesses to those events. If you are going to use the 'made-up defence' against the claims about Jesus then you are going to have to break down these eye-witness accounts. I assume you have read the NT documents? When I read the Gospel according to John for instance I am strongly impressed by the tiny details that the writer includes. Even stuff the 20th C knew little about.

[jbulletc]

@riian1946 As of now, there are no original autographed copies of the gospels. We dont even know who wrote the gospels. No first hand eye witness accounts. Christians tend to site pauls damascus road vision but that was supposedly the spirit of jesus. and josephus doesnt count because he wasnt a contemporary. In fact there's no accounts of jesus at the time that were outside the bible or the middle east.

[riian1946]

@jbulletc No autographed copies of any ancient documents exist if it comes to that. Do you reject them too. Even Shakespeare. John's gospel is a first-hand account and the other gospels are based on eye-witness accounts. "no accounts of jesus at the time that were outside the bible or the middle east." Well if you are demanding that level of proof of the NT events you will never come to the truth. Again I ask you, have you ever read John's gospel account?

[jbulletc]

@riian1946 But we have Shakespeare's writings and accounts outside of europe that acknowledge he existed, unlike the life of Jesus. An extraordinary claim calls for extraordinary evidence. The life of a playwright is common, but the life of a son of god requires more than text.As for John, the gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple. The majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it

[riian1946]

@jbulletc en. wikipedia. org.../.wiki../..Historicity..­_ of _ Jesus This wiki gives a reasonably balanced view. Whoever the disciple whom Jesus loved was-the early church believed it was John-he was an eye-witness and I would be interested to know from where you get this 'majority of scholars' contention. Jn 5.2 talks about 5 porticoes. Sceptical scholars pounced on this reference because nothing was then known about the porticoes. And then they were found!! So Jn was correct after all

[jbulletc]

@riian1946 If you wanna use wiki, then i will too. Just look up authorship of john on wiki. It doesnt matter what the church believes. Scholars dont know who wrote them and even most NIV Bibles give an introduction to the gospels that reveal that the authors are unknown.

[riian1946]

@jbulletc ok I've looked at wiki and I'll accept your 'majority of scholars' contention as far as this article goes. However even this mentions front rank scholars who don't accept what the majority say. Many scholars are sceptics who derive from the Enlightenment and are hardly unbiased regarding these matters. We do know that the early church did accept John's authorship. Surely people living in the1st & 2ndC are much more reliable than the conjectures of today's scholars?

[jbulletc]

@riian1946 I wouldnt go that far. Especially when you consider that there isnt a single account of the life of Jesus outside the Bible. And there are other gods like mithra and horus that share characteristics such as, being born on dec 25, born of a virgin, lived as resurrected, and these god are older than the bible. that combined with unknown authorship and no original copies tells me that the Bible is most likely a fabrication.

[riian1946]

@jbulletc well we do have at least 4 accounts in the bible remembering that their variation among themselves suggest independence. Remember too that these weren't 'in a bible' as we know it until the early AD390s. Before that they first circulated as oral tradition. Remembering too that other gospel accounts also existed (eg Gospel to the Hebrews) which didn't get into the canon of scripture. The so-called parallel with Horus is non-existent. See below.

[riian1946]

@riian1946 Jesus wasn't born Dec 25th. Shepherds were out in the fields keeping watch over their flocks: in the middle of winter??? Horus not born of a virgin and had disciples but not 12. Jesus not baptised at 30. Horus deformed from the waist down and associated with rising of the sun but never resurrected as Jesus was. No originals of any first century writing of any sort survive. John'sgospel has a small part of a copy dated AD120+. Amazingwhenconsideringthelacko­fevidenceforHomer.

[jbulletc]

@riian1946 Once again i must resort that those four accounts have unknown authorship. And the Horus parallels along with a few others god are infact true. Christian took from Judaism which took from Zoroastrianism. I specifically looked them up before using them just to make sure. But for the sake of argument, ill go ahead and say that we do have authorship because even that wont confirm the supernatural stories in the bible.

[riian1946]

@jbulletc egyptianmyths. net/horus.htm An uncontroversial site with no axe to grind. Am I right in thinking that you believe that acceptance of the s/natural stories in the bible means acceptance of Christian belief in general?The signs were important but mostof them were compassion signs; trying 2 help othersin need. They also pointed to his identity as Messiah of the Jews The gospels chiefly address the Jews. All Jewry longed for the coming of Messiah but when he came he was rejected

[jbulletc]

@riian1946 Its important to understand that the authors of the gospels were very familiar with the old testament which is why they portrayed Jesus the way they did. And other characteristics of horus include being baptized, tempted in the desert, healed the sick, walked on water, raised Asar (translates to Lazarus) from the dead, was crucified, and had 12 disciples, and all of this was written 1280 BC. Please dont take my word for it. Read about the book of the dead. its all there.

[Hufflewaffle]

"If christ is not alive then we are a bunch of deceived people as christians"

Not at all. You just have a very narrow view of metaphors and their foundational role in human comprehension. Learn more about literature, language and psychology. Study WORLD mythology, wake up and find yourself WITH humanity and life as a whole, stop fighting against it.

[nasalai]

Not a trace of hard evidences in this video.....I am disappoint.

[riian1946]

@nasalai What hard evidences were you looking for? If we compare Christian scriptures with other faiths the Christian ones stack up pretty well. When we go to a court room, only what witnesses saw and heard counts. The New T is a book of Witness all of which I believe can be dated before AD68-70. In an oral culture it is astounding that 27 books + were in circulation primarily written by those close to the living, dying and rising of Jesus Christ.

[SimonCHulse]

@jdelbailey good job standing up to these skeptics bro, just remember to "do it with gentleness and respect" 1Peter 3:15

[SimonCHulse]

@Specialpioneersmurf a lot of the stuff he talks about is also referenced in non-biblical writings of the same era. Check out, as an example, the Jewish historian Josephus.

[SimonCHulse]

@bradbssargdons Bobby Conway has a doctorate of what he is talking about, you are merely a skeptic as far as I can tell. What are your qualifications to go taking down what a Doctor of something says? Just a question.

[Enesis]

The empty tomb and missing body of Jesus is such a pathetic argument for his resurrection. No one knows what tomb Jesus was buried in. And even if they did know and the tomb was empty, it does not prove that he resurrected. No one can find the body of my great, great, great, great, grandpa. So maybe that means he resurrected too? Maybe every empty tomb you find is evidence that the person buried inside resurrected?

[riian1946]

@Enesis The real evidence for his resurrection is that his sceptical disciples saw Jesus after his burial and were transformed by it. The NT documents within 10+ years of that event were recording that He was risen. This was an oral culture. Not a text or digital culture like ours!! Therefore resurrection stories were circulating long before that. And then this band of despised followers grew to the 2.8 billion of today. Amazing!

[blackoutninja]

I love the way his shirt is red, and everything else is grey

[Bradbssargdons]

I just watched three of these and i can already call bullshit on all 100+. This guy talks about the bible as if it were an encyclopedia and full of facts. Its nothing but a fairy tale... women telling the others of Christs resurrection is "proof"? HOW?! Prove to me first, that what you are saying actually took place. OH WAIT, you cant.

[SpecialPioneerSmerf]

Historians cannot verify these 'facts' and 'proofs' you claim from a historical viewpoint. If you are arguing from a theological view point then that is a different matter. The scriptures are controversial, inconsistent, not verifiable with any outside evidence... the scriptures as the only testimony do not hold historical weight. In any event, a miracle, is always the least likely explanation for any event in history. Peace.

[Bradbssargdons]

@SpecialPioneerSmerf very well said "the scriptures as the only testimony do not hold historical weight" I would also add 'and do not make any logical sense' ;-)

[SpecialPioneerSmerf]

@Bradbssargdons Thanks! You know, as soon as someone is challenged on these biblical proofs and evidences, 9 times out 10 they pull the morality card, like that somehow saves their argument. When someone can justify why a all powerful all loving God would enact edicts like Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where a virgin girl is forced to marry her rapist, i'll give heed to their superior understanding. Until then I will call bullshit on this horrible, and at times immoral, 'proofs' and 'evidences'.

[jdelbailey]

You have overdeveloped morality for an atheist, one that your perspective can not logically support. There is no God and you're very angry with Him. You still haven't answered the question as to what basis you as an atheist have any right to speak on any issue pertaining to morality or right and wrong. Any other discussion is pointless until you resolve this.

[SpecialPioneerSmerf]

@jdelbailey How do you know, for certain, that what bible says about morality is either correct or incorrect? Would your moral compass guide your decision? Has everyone on this planet, who has higher 'moral' standards, moral only because they have read the bible?

[Bradbssargdons]

@SpecialPioneerSmerf hahaha. totally owned.

[HKragh]

heh... it's kinda funny how the most importend thing to Christianity, the ressurection of Christ, is being described in the Bible in so different ways. If they can't even get such an important event correct, or agree on it, then...bullshit.

[joshuag94]

but arent all these proofs in the bible? how do you explain this to non believers

[atheistprophet5760]

Let's see, Bobby thinks the resurrection is "credible" because women were the first to witness it. Hmm....so his god is obviously a sexist, as he does not value women as much as men. What kind of a god is that to teach his people through his "revealed words" that women are less valuable. Give me a break...almost every other religion has a resurrection story. It's "astounding" Dionysius was cut up and put back together!!..etc. etc.

[Dandy4Candy]

@atheistprophet5760 lol that does not make God sexist that makes the men of that time sexist. The fact that God would use a women shows that God values each sex equally. It also helps to validate the account because if men did make the resurrection up they would have used a man as the first witness because women were not considered credible witnesses at the time.

[atheistprophet5760]

@Dandy4Candy My point, that you obviously missed, is that a book that was supposedly revealed by your god, is sexist in the first place. Ergo, your god revealed a sexist text, which has caused untold misery for women for centuries. The only reason women were not trusted was because your god revealed that they are the cause for the fall of man, and are worth less than man. This comes from a text revealed by your god. That is the point I am making. Or was it sexist men that wrote the text?

[Dandy4Candy]

@atheistprophet5760 No I got your point, but its wrong. The bible is not sexist and neither is God. Man misinterpreting the fall as the fault of women and treating them as lesser beings has nothing to do with God its is simply caused by the pride that all mankind has.

God never reveals that women are the cause of the fall of man. When Adam tries to blame Eve for it, God kicks them both out of the garden. If God blamed it on the women like you said he would have kept Adam in the garden.

[jdelbailey]

@atheistprophet5760 As an atheist what rational basis do you have for lecturing anyone on what is right or wrong, sexist or not? To the contrary of your sexist remarks, Christ treated women in a much more just, fair, and loving way than anyone in His culture. Later on in Ephesians 5:25-33 men are called to sacrificially love their wives as they loved themselves. Doesn't sound sexist to me.

[atheistprophet5760]

@jdelbailey Logic, and the fact that I am a professor of philosophy and religion gives me the basis for "lecturing" It is my job to profess after all. That being said, what you, and so many other christians just do not understand is that if your god revealed a text that is sexist in nature (and the bible is) then your god is sexist! It is his "revelation" after all. You said it all when you said men are to "sacrificially" love their wives. i.e. It's a "sacrifice" they make. See what I mean?

[jdelbailey]

@atheistprophet5760 Nice! As a professor you're justified to lecture! Without sacrifice there is no love. Love, biblically defined, is not something one falls into, but a choice that is followed by actions. Without this, love is about as romantic as a bodily function because essentially that's all it is. The choice and cost to love gives it value. While referencing 1 Corinthians 7:25 re: Paul's opinion on marriage, don't overlook vs. 1-9. Also check out 1 Timothy 4:3 on this matter.

[atheistprophet5760]

@jdelbailey "But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," Exodus 20:5

If god is love, then god is not jealous.

God is jealous.

Therefore god is not love.

[readyaimjayson]

@atheistprophet5760 The context and how the word "jealous" is used in those verses are different.

[jdelbailey]

@atheistprophet5760 The context of the Corinthians passage is the relationship of man to man. The Exodus passage is the relationship of God to man. We are not entitled to what we do not own, namely someone else's possessions; however, God is entitled to a proper response from those He created. As Creator, God has the right of ownership for all things: His jealousy is justified and not a contradiction of His love.

[atheistprophet5760]

@jdelbailey The "context" tells us that Yahweh is a jealous god ( put no gods before him, which implies there were other gods), he is angry (he had people killed as they faced his "wrath) he is vengeful (If he doesn't get his way, he has people killed)--and the bible says all these things.

According to you, as god "owns" all--he can kill, be jealous, vengeful and wrathful because he "owns" everything--as if ownership gives him the right to abuse.It's against the law to abuse the dog I "own."

[atheistprophet5760]

@jdelbailey Even if there is a god that "owns" everything it would still be a contradiction to say that Yahwehj is love, and love cannot be jealous, and yahweh is jealous.--this is a contradiction, and your Humpty Dumpty Semantics where you make words mean whatever you want them to mean cannot hide the fact that it is a contradiction and that the bible is one of the most poorly written texts in the world--which is why early clergy kept it in latin. They didnt want people like me reading it.

[jdelbailey]

Still, logic doesn't tell me how you have a rational basis upon which to make these assertions with an atheistic world-view and you haven't sufficiently supported your position that God and subsequently the Bible are sexist. Thanks for writing back, I enjoy the conversation!

[atheistprophet5760]

@jdelbailey Although a sacrifice can be a good thing, Paul made it clear that one should marry "only if they cannot help themselves."--which is a negative.