ClumsyMonkey.net

maybe you can summarize the proof, besides the fact that it got written into a book?
i don't claim thorough knowledge on the subject.

Much of my proof will revolve around the idea that His resurrection is the most logical explanation given the evidence. i'm not looking for a debate here, I'm simply asking for logical explanations that would disolve the notion that Jesus did infact rise from the dead.

no no you misread me, you said

list off your best reasons that disprove Jesus' resurrection

and i was asking for the evidence, without which i have nothing to refute.

Alright this is by no means an exuastive list but here are some potential proofs I can think of off the top of my head:

1.Crucifiction was the most abhorrent death anyone could undergo. To the Jews it was considered an the ultimate form of public shame. The idea that a movement could rise up out of the Jews, over man who had been crucified, is perposterous. That is, unless this man rose from the dead. Early Christians did not just endorse Jesus' teachings. They were convinced they had seen him alive after his crucifiction.

2.The deciples of Jesus, were greatly disheartened and scattered after his death. And yet days later, they were out proclaiming his resurrection. The apostle Peter flat out denied his relation to Jesus during Jesus' trials but later was willing to die for what he had seen. (Jesus alive and well.)

3. Skeptics of the day were converted. Saul an important Jewish leader, hated the early Christians and even went as far as killing them given the chance. And yet, after seeing what he claims was the resurrected Christ, he converted to Christianity and became one of the most important figures in the early church. Considering the amount of oppression the early church faced, he would have no reason to convert unless he truelly believed.

4.Writings outside the NT dated at the time of Christ affirm the existance of a group of who were willing to die for their belief that Jesus' rose from the dead and was seen among them.

5.The Jewish leaders of the day attempted to cover up the missing body. If Jesus' body had never left the tomb there would have been no need to create a cover story as to why the tomb was empty.

If this math guy knew what he was doing, he could've applied just one more idea to show that this wasn't 97% certain, but actually guaranteed. By his reasoning, anyway.

He's not a mathematician, he's a philosopher. And therein lies the problem.

I once wrote an essay about the rationality of believing in miracles (or some such topic), but it didn't involve the resurrection, so I'm no help here. I may have some lecture notes from "97% guy" about such topics though. I'll have a look later and see what he has to say on the matter.

Wow guys, I seriously thought there would be a lot more objections to the idea of the resurrection. Interesting.

I have an objection for proof #5. It does suggest that his body was missing, but that doesn't necessarily point to resurrection.

If I wanted to fake a resurrection, I would surely think ahead and hide the body. Then, if someone saw my faked resurrection as dangerous to them, surely they would try to discredit it.

Right I'm glad you brought that up it will be adressed in my essay. Basically the theory that the deciples stole the body has been all but dismissed by scholars of today. As i'm sure your aware, your objection is recorded in the Bible.

Basically scholars argue that if the deciples stole the body, they probably would not of been willing to die for something they knew was a lie. That and it was widely recorded that Jesus was seen by many others besides the deciples.

Is it just me, or are there cases today where jurys have no freaking clue what happened and can't decide either way, and there's actual evidence other than hearsay from 2000 years ago? I mean, faith is faith and I completely respect you for having your beliefs, but....

I mean, it's not like there's the hundreds of people that were witnesses to this event all clamouring to tell us about it. They're all dead now, and so one person, whoever that may be (I have no clue, I'm not going to pretend to know anything about this) wrote how he perceived the events of that day, and then we accept them as absolute truth. I mean, 5 people can see a crime take place, and they'll all think they saw something different.

My biggest reason for not believing God resurrected Jesus is that the laws of nature don't allow for that to happen, but they allow for lots of other stuff, so I'd rather go in that direction. All this being said, I'm a non-believer, so of course I'm not going to accept these facts. You, being a believer, will, because they make sense to you.

*sigh* I think what I'm saying is that there's actually not enough facts either way, so I'm not going to argue against you.

Maybe an animal ate the body.

Logic + resurrection do not go well together.

Logic follows the laws of nature and physics

The resurrection does not. Trying to get a logical explanation for an illogical event.

Kind of like an unstoppable force striking an immoveable object. Mutually exclusive.

absolutes don't swing with me

thirdhour wrote:
I mean, it's not like there's the hundreds of people that were witnesses to this event all clamouring to tell us about it. They're all dead now, and so one person, whoever that may be (I have no clue, I'm not going to pretend to know anything about this) wrote how he perceived the events of that day, and then we accept them as absolute truth. I mean, 5 people can see a crime take place, and they'll all think they saw something different.

You'd be correct if only one person were witness to the event and one person wrote about it. The fact is there are 4 seperate accounts of Jesus' life in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each book outlines the life of Jesus his death and his resurrection. Each also claim many witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Of course, most of these people would have been completely unschooled and unable to record their accounts.

Regardless, the Bible contains 4 different accounts clear acounts, (5 if you count Paul) and yes each one is a little different but they all claim the same thing.

Plus, there are more accounts if you're me and you're LDS

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

Maybe I came into this coversation a bit to late, but here's my proof.


Because i'm not totally sure i believe in an omnipotent deity above us, and I certainly disagree with 90% of the bible outside the 10 big ones. My view is inherently biased, because, since i do not believe that version of the divine to exist, i see it quite immprobable that he ressurected anyone. And that crosses out any references that can be made from the bible.


But 90% of the reason i beleive that it didn't happen is because i believe ressurection to be immposible. Scientifically so. Or at least such technologies will not be developed anytime soon, or even in the near future, and certainly not then.


So it comes down a simple fact, if you don't believe in all the Christian view of God, then you cannot see that God as ressurecting Jesus.





In a completly pointless other point because i doubt i can back it up with sources. I recently saw a documentary that proved through astronomy and other science that Jesus was not infact born when the Bible says he was. It does t his by using facts from the Bible, and then prove that it can not have happened. It does not say that Jesus was not born, infact it probably supports it more in the show then otherwise, but proves that the Biblical texts are incorrect on many issues. He was born sometime in April the estimated.


Again, i have no sources to back that up with, did anyone else hear about this?

Joe Cooler wrote:The fact is there are 4 seperate accounts of Jesus' life in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Ok, I get where you're coming from, but it's not like they chose a sample audience of four randoms that were there. These were all Jesus' disciples, who of course strongly believed that Jesus was the son of God. Seeing as how they all had the same frame of mind, I think they'd see it differently than four other people who had never heard of Jesus Christ or didn't know him as the son of God. Honestly, I don't think this really matters, because I don't believe in miracles, so I can't believe in Jesus being ressurected. If I believed in miracles, the solution you've proposed would make sense, just as much sense as any other possiblity.

Actually they were not all Jesus' deciples. Luke for example, was a companion to Saul/Paul, who greatly opposed early christians and the idea that Jesus was the messiah. Only after encountering the risen Jesus himself, did his frame of mind change.

Regardless, i'm not asking whether you believe miracles are possible or not. For the sake of my essay we are assuming they are possible. Knowing this, can they in turn, be shown to have happened. In other words, is a miracle (assuming they are possible) the best explanation for appearance of Jesus' body alive and well after being crucified, given the evidence.

Yeah that's a trickier one, i don't really know enough of Christian Theology to comment on that one intelligently.