Medical science...

If it can not be done it did not happen. (no resusitation equipment at the time)

Either he did not actually 'die' on the cross. (there is a written record from the time that indicates this to be true - but one must be a member of a certian 'society' to view that record).

Or he did die and the tale was consequently 'embellished' by the disciples for their own purposes.

jews do not think he rose from the dead... they don't think he is god, or his son, or a ghost, or anything like that..

MightyMoe states:

"jews do not think he rose from the dead... they don't think he is god, or his son, or a ghost, or anything like that.."

All the more reason to believe there would be documentation refuting this.

The thing about this kind of argument is that it assumes that the whole story about the resurrection is true. Well, maybe not true, but that the events ever happened at all has not been proven.

It is not a true story. It never happened, so of course there is no evidence .... of anything. The New Testament is a fabrication. None of it ever happened.

1. If you can't prove that it happened you can't possibly expect to prove that it is true.

2. If you can't prove that it happened, asking for proof that it did not happen is silly and ridiculous.

ask a jew... they don't need to wright it down...

freakyshiki, there is no reason to believe there would be any documentation refuting something that never happened at all.

It is as simple as that.

It would be like saying, as follows:

Dinosaurs walked the earth. [This, by the way, is documented in the Bible.]

OK, show me a dinosaur bone.

Well, we can't show you any bones, but they did walk the earth.

Logically, that makes no sense.

Same here.

If you cannot produce a single document discounting Christ's resurrection, when there is mounting evidence, in the form of documentation, that He did rise form the dead, you have to conclude He did. This is logic, not faith.

JeannieBean state why would there be documentation refuting this? The Jewish elders back then did not want this to get out there, as they were so adamant that He was not the Christ. If after three days, He rose from the dead, and people are stating this publicly, many, many times, and this were not true, the Jewish people would have written reams of documentation discounting this.

They did not write anything. Why?

Because it happened.

Again, this is logic.

Rather than prove it did not happen...

Prove that it did...

Using sources other than the bible and other 'religious' documents.

One of the reasons that the Roman Empire was so successful was because of its record keeping.

If a man had died and then come back to life after being nailed to a cross the Roman 'authorities' would have most definately recorded it.

They have records of EVERY punishment administered by the Empire.

I found no mention in those records of Jesus of the Nazerene.

ok, show us proof that jesus walk the earth... show me a bone...

freakyshiki there is no mounting evidence proving anyone's resurrection. At all.

You keep saying there is, okay then, where is it?

Just out of curiosity (cos I'm a curious kind of person) when did you stop being curious, when did you stop seeking inforamtion that would add to your knowledge?

So you read a book perhaps or watch a TV series and you know all there is you need to know about court proceedings and the law. Why then, sir, must layers and judges be so highly educated?

You think that historical documentation is accurate because it's old. Why then do historians spent countless years studying languages and anthropolgy and ancient cultures in order to interpret the documentation they have found?

Why are there so many interpretations in scripture? Because new evidence comes to light and indicates that a long ago trascription error or some cultural assessment error has been discovered that changes the interpretation. Of course those whose egos will not bend, are not likely to change and so we have thousands of Christian sects whose beliefs are variable.

Admit it, faith is personal, and what people believe is a matter of personal interpretation and not a matter of personally chosen words of a god that was written in antiquity by humans.

"Rather than prove it did not happen, prove that it did."

We have the writings of the Bible, Prius, and Josephus. Are we now saying that Jesus Christ never existed? That He never walked among us? That is illogical, and here is why.

Logically speaking, if you were going to die, would you do so if you were not 100% sure that Christ (a) existed, and (b) was the Christ? If Christ never existed, you would not go to your death. A few people, maybe, but thousands?

Also, Christianity would not have lasted for this much time is Christ never existed. If this were a myth, it would not have outlasted the Roman Empire. Doesn't add up.

MightyMoe states:

ok, show us proof that jesus walk the earth... show me a bone...

Jesus ascended to heaven. Therefore, nothing is left behind here. Read Acts 1 for more information.

Redy, you said there were dozens of documents disputing Christ's resurrection. Thus far, NOBODY has been able to find ONE.

Not a person here.
Not a person ever.
They do not exist.

As to whether faith is personal, that is the point for another topic. The original post was whether we can prove Christ's resurrection. I am stating we can. I have given one logical argument, and thus far, nobody has been able to disprove it.

"freakyshiki there is no mounting evidence proving anyone's resurrection. At all. You keep saying there is, okay then, where is it?"

The Bible, Josephus, Prius, to name but three. There are others. But, I am still waiting for your evidence that He did not rise from the dead.

freakshiki, it never happened.

What proof do you even have that people were stating this publicly?

Even if people did state this publicly, and even if you could prove it, that does not mean it is true. These people you claim stated this publicly, do you have their names and can you prove they were not part of the lie? You cannot know or prove that they were not just repeating a story the had heard. That is no proof, that is hearsay. Even the so-called recorded events of the hearsay is meaningless because even if people did say it, that does not prove it actually happened.

Freakyshiki it does not matter how many times or how many people repeat a lie, that does not make it truth.

You repeat it because you have been told and you decided to believe it. Maybe you think it is true, but it is not true. You are a perpetrator of the great lie.

how convenient...

Again, this is a logical post. mightymoe, can you provide some logical reason as to why Christ's resurrection never happened?

Freakyshiki you say you are waiting for our evidence that he did not rise from the dead. You have not even proved that he even existed.

And yet it was you who bragged about your going to post proof. Now you are asking others to prove it did not happen. You are not posting your proof as you promised you would.



1. The New Testament is a fiction.
2. Josephus can't be proven to have existed and was probably a pen name for Calpurnius Piso. The Piso family can be documented in history.
3. Prius I don't know who he was, but I bet he never mentioned Jesus.



RE:

~~The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin,

because dead people do not come back to life... never has happened since this time, and it will never happen again...after being dead for 3 days, my logic says this... it has never happened before that, has not happened since, if it did happen, and since your saying 1 person out of multi-billions of people did this,the chances of this resurrection happening slim to none...i do not believe in magic or miricles.

now show me some logic saying it did happen, not something someone wrote down, but some actual proof... history texts are not proof, that is what as known as heresay evidence and does not apply

freakyshiki, your personal faith is your business. But if you want to test the truth of your doctrines, stop looking for proof to support your belief and start looking for proof to disprove it.

Then your eyes will be opened.

One cannot believe or disbelieve in God if one does not know what God is.

JeannieBean writes:

"But if you want to test the truth of your doctrins, stop looking for proof to support it and start looking for proof to disprove it."

Is that the mindset of the unbeliever? Is that what people do to prove something? Let's test the truth by disproving it?

Okie dokie.

Let's disprove Christ's nonexistance.

Easy to do. Who's with me?

Here's the thing, and I know I'm going to rub some of you the wrong way. When faced with logic of the veracity of Christ's resurrection, you cannot refute it. You can't use evidence and logic to do so. And so, you cast doubts and say lies.

That is the work of Satan.

As an example, JeannieBean states, "Prius I don't know who he was, but I bet he never mentioned Jesus."

You would lose that bet. He absolutely mentioned Jesus.

"Josephus can't be proven to have existed."

So now these words of his magically appeared on paper?

MightyMoe says, "Because dead people do not come back to life... never has happened since this time, and it will never happen again...after being dead for 3 days, my logic says this."

Exactly, let's say you are a scholar. If your logic says this, and then people are going around proclaiming that he did rise from the dead, wouldn't you write that down? Wouldn't you make a notation of that? Because we sure have a heck of a lot of evidence supporting Christ's resurrection. Considering the mindset of people at the time, wouldn't there be even more documentation refuting this, if, for nothing else, to quell the masses? Wouldn't there be something?

Logically speaking, if you were against this, and you lived at the time, and you had the means to do so, if anything, you would write many, many documents discounting this. You would not say nothing, because that would only serve to convince people Christ did rise from the dead.

Lastly, I have over a dozen points supporting Christ's resurrection. I am still waiting for a logical, valid argument from someone here that can show logically that Christ's resurrection was false.

I'm not stating my faith here; I'm presenting my case. Awaiting you to do the same.