Bolding in the above quote was my addition for clarification only.

I'm curious - and so I took the trouble to put this thead here so that Shiki will only have to supply the answer. Thanks Shiki.

By the way, you should feel as free to post in any section you like as I am to read, reply or add to any section. The Sci & phil topics can be very interesting and there have been highly intellectual and conversations going on there - and for some reason your topic just seemed ingenuine.

But as I said, I'm curious - was the post ingenuine on your part or do you actually have a reply????

I havent done so yet, But I would gamble one can place 'scientific proof of the resurrection' into their favorite search engine and get plenty of info on that side of the equation/argument

I personally don't think we can even prove that he ever actually lived much less that he was "resurrected".

Let's not forget that to support this story is was far more than Just Jesus being "resurrected" at that time.


Matthew 27:

[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


So according to the Biblical stories Jesus wasn't the only one to be resurrected at that time. "Many bodies of saints which slept arose"

They also supposedly, "went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

I personally don't believe that there exists any independent historical account of any such event. The only place I've ever heard of this is from the book of Matthew. I don't even think other authors of the New Testament support this event.

None the less it is part of Matthew's story.

In any case, getting back to the question at hand. If Shiki believes that he can prove the resurrection of Jesus using logic, reason, and science, then he should present his hypothesis to the scientific community. If it truly holds up to logic, reason, and the standards of science, then it will be accepted.

Until then, why should anyone accept his unsupported claims?

Anyone can claim that they can prove something scientifically, achieving that goal is a whole other story.

I don't believe that anyone has ever proven that Jesus ever actually existed at all, much less that he rose from the dead.

In fact, before you could prove that he 'rose' from the dead, you'd have to prove that he was dead at one point.

All I have to say to Shiki is "Good Luck!"

If he could prove that he'd be world-renowned in fame.

The most brilliant scientists of humanity have pretty much discounted the Bible as not even being remotely realistic. Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and the list goes on and on.

Anybody can create a web site and say anything they want.

I have no doubt that you can find web sites that have been created by religious zealots that make all sorts of claims that would never be accepted or approved by the actual scientific community as being "logical, reasonable, or scientific".

Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)

In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:

"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do." (Bettenson, p. 3)

These passages indicate that Christianity was wide spread in the Roman empire within 80 years of Christ's death. Again, these are eyewitness accounts, not historians looking back years later.

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).

It is a substantial thing that an historian who spends his life considering historical facts should affirm the reality of Christ's existence as well as the rapid growth of the early movement.

The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.

*source www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm*

i don't think they are denying his existence, but his resurrection... i think there was a man named jesus, but i pretty sure he didn't rise from the dead...

Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. Before they jump into this fray, they should first ask themselves about the nature of historical facts. Most historical "facts" are not proven. "History" (whatever that is) says that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, yet evidence indicates he did not. History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. The German Theologian Jurgen Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968)

I have no problems believing that some man, lived, preached against the horrible moral values of the Torah, and was crucified for blaspheme. None of that would surprise me in the least.

I don't doubt the existence of such a man. But I do place extreme doubts on the New Testament claims about this man, including the resurrection.

The bottom line for me is that this whole story as claimed by the authors of the New Testament is not even supportable within the overall biblical picture. Not to mention that the Old Testament also contains it's own severe contradictions and absurdities.

I would discount the Old Testament or "Torah" as being the "word of God" even if Jesus never existed. In other words, I wouldn't believe in Judaism is Christianity didn't exist.

I agree with the Jews that Jesus did not come anywhere close to fulfilling the prophesies of their original religion anyway.

Therefore if there is any truth to the existence of Jesus, I'm convinced that he was actually trying to get people to quit "obeying" the directives of the Torah. After all, that's basically even what the gospels have him doing. The Torah had people judging each other and stoning sinners to death. Jesus taught people not to judge each other and found a really clever way to get them to stop stoning sinners to death (i.e. He who is without sin cast the first stone).

Jesus also renounced the seeking of revenge that the Torah had taught people to do via an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and instead taught them to forgive those who trespass against them and turn the other cheek rather than seeking revenge.

So even the gospels clearly have Jesus renouncing the ways of the Torah. It's no wonder that the Pharisees had him crucified. Jesus had completely renounced the directives and behaviors taught of the Torah (if the gospels were correct in that much).

I think they had no choice but to acknowledge that these were the things that Jesus taught because people were probably already aware of this. The reason that the crucifixion of Jesus caused so many rumors was indeed because he taught nothing but love and forgiveness, and thus his crucifixion was totally unwarranted.

So that's what sparked the controversy.

Many people did not accept that Jesus was "The Christ". In fact, the early Christians had to enforce those rumors of Jesus using a sword and the threat of death. Either accept their rumors of Jesus as the "Holy Gospel" or face serious threat of physical injury or death.

We know without a doubt that the New Testament version of Jesus was indeed pushed onto people via threat. That has been a theme throughout history since Christianity began.

Either accept "our rumors" as the word of God, or face serious opposition and possible death!

That's what got the religion off the ground and running.

Not because people actually believed it, but because they were being threatened with physical harm or death if they refused to accept it.

Jesus completed EVERY prophecy from the old testament/Torah.

I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith?

The way I look at it is as follows:

We cannot possibly know whether the resurrection of Jesus ever happened. There is certainly not enough "historical" evidence to support any such idea.

Therefore, if we seek to consider this as a possible scenario we mut look into the entire biblical story from start to finish taking into account the entire context of the whole story.

When I do that, I conclude that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to believe that the Old Testament was the "word of God", nor does it make any sense to believe the Jesus was the son of the God portrayed in the Old Testament.

So there's not even any reason to consider any supposed "resurrection" at that point.

Faith is required for EVERYTHING even science.

The fact that everything is made up of smaller cells that can not be seen by the naked eye, is taken by faith. Unless one did some experimenting them self to prove it's validity. But how many people have done that? Most people put faith in that it's true.

The fact that it's "oxygen" we need to breath is also taken on faith less one is willing to do experiments to prove that it is the oxygen we need.

ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH.

good point... the whole religion is based on faith, not fact...maybe thats why science was "frowned upon" for such a long time

Clearly the Jews do not agree with you.

The Muslims do not agree with you.

Clergy and spiritualists from other religions around the world who have read the Christian Bible have not been convinced of this.

The greatest scientists of humanity have looked into the matter and weren't convinced either.

So clearly your personal opinion on this matter is just that. A personal opinion, nothing more.

If it were as crystal clear as you'd like to believe then other people would see it too, but that's obviously not the case.

no, you are 100% wrong on this... science is proving issues to become facts... no room for faith.. and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die without oxygen...

What's so different about the old and new testament?

1. *old testament* We are judged by the word. The word was the laws God gave us to abide by. And the only reward for sin is death. To receive forgiveness one would sacrifice something in their life to show their sincerity in their apology and show that they wished to fix that mistake they made.

2. *New Testament* We are judged by the word. The word has no been made flesh and can carry out the judgment on his own, not needing others to do the judgment eg., stoning sinners to death. To receive forgiveness we accept the sacrifice Jesus made for us all. To show our sincerity in our faith we accept Jesus as lord and savior and do our best to obey his laws he laid out before us.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070226212800.htm


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology

two non religious concerning evidence of the EXISTENCE of Jesus

I think its as likely as science being able to PROVE , two thousand years from now, that you texted in this site,,,,,

there just isnt a SCIENTIFIC standard to prove such a thing

but they might have a historical record (documents) to suggest that you did,,,

Jeremiah 7:21-23 (New International Version, ©2011)

21 “‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat yourselves! 22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you.



Jeremiah 7:21-23 (King James Version)

21Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.

22For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

23But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.


Interesting to note that one verse implies sacrifices were commanded while the other does not...

Yes very good. Our God wishes for us not to sin in the first place. He doesn't want burnt offerings, sacrifices, and or anything else we could possibly think of doing to cover up our sins. He just wishes for us not to sin in the first place.