Why do christians believe jesus rose from the dead ? Just because the bible says so ? Anyone think they can prove the resurrection of jesus, & do so without resorting to the bible ?

No they can't because religion has no proof only faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deist

Why do christians believe jesus rose from the dead ? Just because the bible says so ? Anyone think they can prove the resurrection of jesus, & do so without resorting to the bible ?

---

How can you prove a fact recorded in the Bible without resorting to the Bible?
By other historical documents, unfortunately records of that era are few and the Bible has proven the most reliable. Why, because war and the centuries have reduced them to dust. Jesus is both a historical figure and an object of faith. So we have to rely on testimony, We believe what we are told about him because his life is remarkable and the Bible writers tell us that there were people who were alive at the time the books were written who were witnesses and could both collaborate or refute what is written. No one refuted the accounts so they must be true. The Bible records that many saw Jesus after the resurrection. The testimony of so many witnesses makes it reliable.

Even more so is the testimony of the Romans, after the resurrection the Romans instituted the most stringent measures against anyone interferring with a grave and the Bible account tells us that they had posted a guard on the tomb yet Jesus had arose. Where were the guards, they had run off, derelict in their duty, an offense punishable by death with the improbale story that the disciples stole the body. Stole the body under Roman guard without a fight, highly improbable. The body of Jesus has never been found, what a way to treat a spiritual leader? not to venerate his grave? Why ?because there is no need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

How can you prove a fact recorded in the Bible without resorting to the Bible?
By other historical documents, unfortunately records of that era are few and the Bible has proven the most reliable. Why, because war and the centuries have reduced them to dust. Jesus is both a historical figure and an object of faith. So we have to rely on testimony, We believe what we are told about him because his life is remarkable and the Bible writers tell us that there were people who were alive at the time the books were written who were witnesses and could both collaborate or refute what is written. No one refuted the accounts so they must be true. The Bible records that many saw Jesus after the ressurection. The testimony of so many witnesses makes it reliable.

Even more so is the testimony of the Romans, after the ressurrection the Romans instituted the most stringent measures against anyone interferring with a grave and the Bible account tells us that they had posted a guard on the tomb yet Jesus had arose. Where were the guards, they had run off, derelict in their duty, an offense punishable by death with the improbale story that the disciples stole the body. Stole the body under Roman guard without a fight, highly improbable. The body of Jesus has never been found, what a way to treat a spiritual leader?, not to venerate his grave? Why ?because there is no need.

---

There is no proof that people of the time actually witnessed the risen jesus, other than the bible's own claim. A writer could have said there were witnesses, when, in fact, there were none. All you have is the bible's word for it, you have no other proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deist

There is no proof that people of the time actually witnessed the risen jesus, other than the bible's own claim. A writer could have said there were witnesses, when, in fact, there were none. All you have is the bible's word for it, you have no other proof.

---

The Bible is our proof. Because the Bible is the truth. That is what we believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen2grace

The Bible is our proof. Because the Bible is the truth. That is what we belive.

---

There is no proof that the bible is truth. That is merely one belief among millions.

Just curious, what do you think was the motive for the Apostles to make up the resurrection?

If you don't wish to believe the writings of various people recorded in many writings, ( not all put into the bible) but all written by Christian writers. So it is all faith, as is most religions

Deist :

You can Google it under resurrection and apologetics to begin with if you are truly searching.


1 Corinthians 2:
13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.


It took me 39 years, and even though I was a raised by devout RC parents, went to parochial schools, a RC High School, have a bachelors in science and a doctorate, my own intellect could not fully grasp the Resurrection, until I was broken and gave up on myself, and searched with my heart.



Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Deist :

You can google it under resurrection and apologetics to begin with if you are truly searching.


1 Corinthians 2:
13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.


It took me 39 years, and even though I was a raised by devout RC parents, went to parochial schools, a RC High School, have a bachelors in science and a doctorate, my own intellect could not fully grasp the Resurrection, until I was broken and gave up on myself, and searched with my heart.



Grace and Peace

---

I've read various books on the resurrection, including evidence that demands a verdict & more evidence that demands a verdict. All the evidence presented there come from sources who were not contemporary with jesus, so I'm not impressed. All the apologetics in the world would not convince me of the resurrection. What would convince me would be if I were an eyewitness myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deist

I've read various books on the resurrection, including evidence that demands a verdict & more evidence that demands a verdict. All the evidence presented there come from sources who were not contemporary with jesus, so I'm not impressed. All the apologetics in the world would not convince me of the resurrection. What would convince me would be if I were an eyewitness myself.

---

How would you then convince others?

And I doubt if you would really believe them, many Jews of that time frame still did not believe. And no one is forcing you to trying to force you to believe, It is not our place to force your to find salvation, it is your choice alone

I have to agree with Chuck, if you don't believe in the resurrection don't condemn others that do. If one can prove God than there's nothing you can have faith in for how can you have faith in something you already see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

How would you then convince others?

---

There is no way to convince others aside from using the bible, but many people don't believe the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deist

There is no way to convince others aside from using the bible, but many people don't believe the bible.

---

So with your theory that books or even the Bible (the most undisputable, best selling book of all time) need to have witnesses or physical evidence to be true... than in 200-300 years when physical evidence and witness accounts of the Holocaust no longer exist than it is justifiable for people to not believe that occurred either?

The Book of Mark originally ended with the "empty tomb". The story of the Resurrection was added later.

We see in very many places where scriptures are altered, forgeries made, and so forth... The entire Book of Acts is a forgery, made up out of whole cloth as verified by scriptural analysists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountain_man

So with your theory that books or even the Bible (the most undisputable, best sellin book of all time) need to have witnesses or physical evidence to be true...than in 200-300 years when physical evidence and witness accounts of the Holocaust no longer exist than it is justifiable for people to not believe that occurred either?

---

By your argument in 300 years people might follow the order of the Jedi. After all Jedism is by survey the most popular religion in England so with that and the historical films in 300 years we should hold the tales as true. How about king Arthur many people don't know that King Arthur was not true even now. So since most of the people believe that King Arthur was a real person should we indulge them as well. What I'm saying is we need to consider the source and where the source got his information from and when the information was written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

By your argument in 300 years people might follow the order of the Jedi. After all Jedism is by survey the most popular religion in England so with that and the historical films in 300 years we should hold the tales as true. How about king Arthur many people don't know that King Arthur was not true even now. So since most of the people believe that King Arthur was a real person should we indulge them as well. and where the source got his information from and when the information was written.

---

That is absolutely right "What I'm saying is we need to consider the source " and the source of the Bible is man inspired by God (inspired in that context means "God breathed")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

The Book of Mark originally ended with the "empty tomb". The story of the Resurrection was added later.

We see in very many places where scriptures are altered, forgeries made, and so forth.....The entire Book of Acts is a forgery, made up out of whole cloth as verified by scriptural analysists.

---

What basis do you have to say that all of the Book of Acts is a forgery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountain_man

That is absolutely right "What I'm saying is we need to consider the source " and the source of the Bible is man inspired by God (inspired in that context means "God breathed")

---

What if the bible was inspired by Hades to lure you away from the worship and the truth of Zeus. Do you not think that a god is not capable of fooling man? How do you know what god inspired man to write the bible? There are so many gods that man has lost count. The point is you don't know for sure it takes faith in something impossible and you believe it because it's what your parents believed and what their parents before them believed. If you were born in a muslim house hold you would be muslim and would be talking about how the koran is the truth. This blind faith is why you can't use the bible as a historical text because once you start allowing religious text as historical fact it's a slippery slope.