I want Christians to prove Jesus really resurrected

I want Christians to prove Jesus really resurrected.

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631
amazon.com/Signature-God-Handwriting/dp/0884862550
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
youtube.com/watch?v=7ijXIJRMhKE
youtube.com/watch?v=RWfTv-fmhhs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

someone probably just took the body

17034820623


Ask them. They will show you proof.

have some pasta then:

1: Christ is a historical figure. he died via Roman crucifixion. This is a historical fact. (see 1 in pic related)
no one walks away from roman crucifixion, it's a 3 step process.
if you survive the scourging and crucifixion, the third step is the deathblow.
they need to pry someone off a cross, so they would smash their head in or stab them through the heart with a sword or spear, or set them on fire, or let wild animals rip them apart.

2: We have firsthand and secondhand eyewitness testimony claiming he visited them in person after his death.
it's written in Paul's epistle to the corinthians.
>inb4 USING THE BIBLE TO PROVE THE BIBLE TRUE? UGHHH CHRIST-TARD
hold on, it's written in this epistle, but it originated much earlier, secular scholarship corroborates this (see 2 in pic related)
>3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
>4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,
>5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
>6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
>7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
>8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
notice that He's appearing to groups, that rules out the 'hallucination hypothesis,' because hallucinations are subjective to the individual.
this creed is also dated to around the month year of Christ's crucifixion by secular scholarship as well, so that rules out the 'legend hypothesis.'

3: These people suffered severe persecution, torture, and death for holding this view.
which is not something someone who is unsure or knows that what they are professing is a lie is going to do.

its in the gospel you damn heathen

>These people suffered severe persecution, torture, and death for holding this view.

This is perhaps the strongest evidence for me. I definitely believe it.

You have to read. These two books will tell you everything you need to know, I promise you they will illustrate the hard science, archaeology and historicity of the bible, as well as the esoteric proof regarding prophecies and divinely placed Bible codes that no man could write. You will have to put some time into this but if you're serious I promise you it will open your eyes.

"For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."


Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

The Signature of God-Grant Jeffrey

amazon.com/Signature-God-Handwriting/dp/0884862550

therefore, options ruled out as irrational:
A) the eyewitnesses were all lying
B) the eyewitnesses were all hallucinating the same thing at each occurence
C) the myth of this event evolved over time (legend hypothesis)
D) Christ survived the crucifixion

options left:
E) the event actually occured
F) ? ? ?

the only reason to deny E in light of the evidence we have is this circular cancer:
>this is not evidence that a supernatural has taken place,
>because supernatural events do not take place,
>because there is no evidence for supernatural events taking place,
>therefore, this is not evidence that a supernatural event has taken place

it's the thought that counts

>I want Christians to prove Jesus really resurrected.
If Jesus hadn't resurrected, Satan would be king of Earth.

Chessmate, faggot.

Burn in hell, atheist.

Proof? It's written in the Bible that Jesus rose from the dead, that's the proof. You should realize by now that anything written in a book is always 100% true 100% of the time. You can't just write something in a book that's not true. I challenge you to find anything written in any book ever released that isn't completely true.

Holy fuck dude... it says Jesus resurrected in the Bible. The Bible is a book. All statements written in books are true. Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.

How stupid can you be to have to ask for proof Jesus resurrected considering it's literally written in the Bible as happening. Once more... the Bible is a book and it's written within that book that Jesus rose from the dead, thus being proven.

Even for Sup Forums your stupidity is astounding... 99.9% of the people who use this website fully understand that ANYTHING written in ANY book is 100% true which mean that you are a very special kind of stupid for not knowing this.

KYS

cute strawman, sweetie
why don't you try refuting the argument i posted earlier?

It's not a strawman, darling. Anyone with any even slight modicum of intelligence knows that ANYTHING written within ANY book is ALWAYS true 100% of the time. If you don't understand this simple fact of reality then you are beyond help and need to be immediately sacrificed to God by being raped with a giant 2-foot long AIDS infected black dildo.

You can't just try and say that stuff written in books isn't true. How fucking retarded are you? You probably have the IQ of a rabbits foot keychain. KYS

It matters not if Christ resurrected, or even if he died.
What matters is that one drop of his blood was enough to redeem the whole of humanity.
But it was more than just a drop that was shed that day.
The spilling of Jesus' blood was enough to save the world a trillion times over, for you and future generations.
Jesus shed all his blood for you, and all he asks back is a drop of faith.
People wonder why salvation doesn't have a high cost. It's simply because Jesus Christ had already paid it. And yet people still deny the Lord and his name.

Because if the Apostles were wrong the Jews could just show His body to disprove them

>this is the level of intelligence of and argumentation atheists on Sup Forums have and use
really makes me think

In this day and age you can ask people to prove anything. And you can easily deny whatever they say. Ask people to prove the moon landing, their are arguments against it. Ask people to prove the Holocaust was as bad as people say, people will argue against it. Ask people to prove that the Elvis died, people will argue against it.
Prove to me that anything we watch on the News everyday is real. I have no clue anymore how much is real and how much fake. I've watched the CNN fake video of the Gulf War years ago and the Syria Danny fake videos a few years back.
What is real and what isn't? How many news groups do this, how often do they do it? Do some just have better CGI and actors? I don't know.
You can't "prove" very much to anyone about anything. So no, I can't "prove" to you that someone died along time ago and was resurrected. If you don't want to believe it that's fine, nobody is making you.
It's a matter of faith, that I believe it. You don't need to. But to me it's more real than the prison planet of lies we now live in.

"He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
>Matthew 12:39

>A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!
true, but one was given

"For he has set a day when we will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

>resds the god delusion once

You need to believe it with all your heart, mind and soul.
That's a lie that the jews believe to this day.

This is true.
I would say, believe until they have been proven to lie.
Government lies, it's a fact, so why should they be believed?
Media news has been proven to lie, then why should they continue to be believed?
But have the apostles and Jesus ever proven to be liars? No, there's just nothing of the sort.


"15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15

Redeem all of humanity for what? I didn't do anything wrong.

buy and read this

amazon.es/Jesus-Died-Kashmir-Tribes-Israel/dp/0860330419

good posts, m8

Find me ANY statement in ANY book EVER written in all of human history that isn't 100% true.

pro-tip: You can't

There is no such thing as a statement written within a book that isn't absolutely true... and there never will be. It's an impossibility and it would require a fundamental breaking of the laws of physics in order for there to be a statement in a book that isn't complete truth. You can't prove this wrong and if anyone doesn't understand this extremely fundamental law of reality they should seek immediate mental health assistance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

It proved that humans could die perfect and therefore weren't a flawed creation.
Believe it or not, it's not about you as an individual.

That doesn't explain what I did wrong and why a human sacrifice is required.

We are all part of this world. We are connected in all ways material. The pain being caused is brought by us collectively. And we share that pain collectively. Look at the path this world is taking? Do you see it getting better as we move further from the teachings of Christ? In the pain and torment of us and our future children, we all take part in it. This is not a construction to promote shame as the Catholic Church likes to push. There is no church in the Tinsdale Bible. This is about removal of ego and understanding how ego always clings onto its idols when in fact nothing material should ever be idolized.

It wasn't about human sacrifice. It was about a man living a perfect life and dying perfect.
Adam was the only other person who was born perfect and he sinned. Therefore there was a question if humans were flawed. And if God made a flawed creation.

"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people." Romans 5:18

Its SUNworship.

So what did I do that was wrong? Explain to me like I'm 5 years old. I haven't been able to pick it out in any off your posts yet.

It was Adam that did something wrong.

this

Then why did Jesus have to die to redeem all of humanity?

There's nothing to prove. Memetic property is still property. You may say it is worthless, but if I employ it to yield wine for my own use your feelings are actually irrelevant. If I am willing to punish you for attempting to steal it, your feelings become dangerous.

Atheism only blinds people to such truths. Thought not entirely, since I notice they never have the balls to shit on Muslims.

To prove that a Man could die perfect and that humans were worth saving.

Prove he didn't

He appeared in the smoke and the flames of the WTC disaster.

He imprinted a photographic negative of himself in a 2000 year old shroud.

Saving from what?

To be saved from Death.
That they were worth being given the gift of everlasting life.

I want heathens to prove that Jesus WASN'T resurrected. Historians and scholars have never come up with a convincing alternate theory. The EYEWITNESS accounts of the resurrection serve as the best possible explanation of something (the empty tomb) that almost everyone agrees happened. The historical resurrection is Ockham's Razor at its finest.

Just a note, my views as a Christian are very unorthodox. I decide my own interpretation of the Bible and the world around me. It even says we must study it. It doesn't say we need someone to define it for us.

But as for you, personally. I would suggest you are not such a small thing as you believe you are. Adam was made from the dirt of the earth, because he is connected to the earth. What you see surrounding you is you. The tree that falls in the woods without a witness does not make a sound. You would have to be there to create that sound. You see, it's a world where we are connected in every way. You are connected to me right now, because my words would mean nothing without a reader to read them. In a way, I would go as far to say you are me and everything around you. From your narrow view of course, you did not create your environment. But you are creating your environment now just by looking at it, without realizing it.

Sin, the act of defying God's perfect will. Adam and Eve were sinless, before they chose to defy God, bringing sin into the world, and all future human generations.

>I decide my own interpretation of the Bible

Thises

Wow. Couldn't have said it better. Didn't expect to see this on pol today

>The tree that falls in the woods without a witness does not make a sound

That's ridiculous, of course it does. The rest of your post is philosophical mumbo jumbo gibberish. You are not me and I am not you, our only connection is this conversation, and I certainly am not responsible for your crimes.

Even if I allow the ridiculous assumption that we all descend from Adam and Eve, why am I responsible for their sin?

In the mediaeval days, having an opposing view to the church would get you killed. But it's right there in the Bible, there is no church and we must study the Bible daily. Tinsdale was the first to bring the Bible into the English language and the chruch burned him alive for it. The churches have been concealing us the truth that's right there. By trusting in the church for an analysis or meaning of the words of Jesus you are begging for a substitute. There is no substitute for Jesus, or his words. Part of faith is connecting with his words and seeing what occurs to you.

Who said you are responsible for their sin?
There is a reality to life. You parents may make good decisions and get wealth. You are born to wealthy parents. Maybe you parents are born in a terrible country though and it doesn't matter what they do. You will be born into that terrible country.
We are born of Adam and Eve and their is just a reality we can not escape on our own. They had a good deal given to them by a powerful being. The deal was remade. It's as simple as that.

You are looking at it materially, and with only your limited 5 senses, then of course it will be ridiculous to you. The world is vibration and energy. Everything else is composed by us. The tree doesn't make a sound until you or someone else comes along with ears to change the vibrations to sound.
We are not even what we think we are. What we're made of is not material. It only looks and feels material. We can only see within .005 of the full spectrum of light. Everything else is just invisible. Have you really convinced yourself that all that makes up the world is what your limited senses can acquire?

This is gold. Saved.

His prophecies about how the world would end come true. His birth, His life, His words, all were prophesied by the prophets and came true. It was prophesied He will resurrect. True.

I thought Jesus died so that we can go to Heaven since he redeemed our sins? If I'm not responsible, why is Jesus needed at all? Why can't I just go to heaven? Seems God says I'm responsible.

>The tree doesn't make a sound until you or someone else comes along with ears to change the vibrations to sound.

That's simply wrong, sound is just vibration in air or another medium. That is what sound is by definition. An observer is not necessary.

Bump

it's a myth/metaphor from an age when information was used, contained and spread very differently.

>I thought Jesus died so that we can go to Heaven

That's not what the Bible says. What it does say is:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

That's not how it works. It's his death that paid for our sin. Not his literal blood. His blood is a metaphor for his death.

Sound is the result of the vibration. Just the way I'm explaining here, the world is all vibration. Humans are a vibration. Humans who have sinned and are leading our kind to further sin, away from Jesus, is a vibration. And you are just a sound resulting from that. But do not have shame for what you are. For you have been redeemed already from one drop of Jesus' blood.

o shit the very last line in the image is wrong, copied the wrong thing

Why would it be? Anti-medicine people die of crippling and painful diseases today, and they have proof that modern medicine works.

People raised in a cult tend to believe the cult dogma almost no matter what happens to them.

>firsthand and secondhand eyewitness testimony claiming he visited them in person after his death
>hold on, it's written in this epistle, but it originated much earlier, secular scholarship corroborates this (see 2 in pic related)
Top kek, this is the most dishonest "evidence" of the resurrection of Jesus I've ever read.

How the fuck is a CREED passed down and then written by someone else years after the events that allegedly took place firsthand or even secondhand eyewitness testimonies?

Those eyewitnesses didn't write testimonies, for fuck's sake. We don't even know who they are because they were nobodies. It's all hearsay by illiterate and easily influenced peasants in the span of decades after the crucifixion until Paul writes the epistles, describing what those people BELIEVED because they heard from other people who also BELIEVED but heard from people who supposedly witnessed some dead guy walking around.

Even the clone theory is more credible than this shit.

Sound is not the result of the vibration. Sound is the vibration. That's what sound is, by definition.

I didn't ask for Jesus to redeem me and I reject him outright.

Original sin, you 'tard.

The knowledge of good and evil is sinful in and of itself.

Christ, do you even Bible?

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
[6] And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Rev 1:5

Beware, many counterfeit Bibles try to change this line. They do not want you to know the truth about Jesus' blood.

>I didn't ask for Jesus to redeem me and I reject him outright.

That's what they original story of Adam and Eve is about. God gives you the right to reject him. It just means you don't get to benefit from his gifts.

Is God sinful, or does he just not have the knowledge of good and evil?

If the Romans wanted to discredit Christianity at the time, why didn't they just bring out his body after the crucifixion?
Cuz there was no body senapi

Of course it's not good evidence. You're talking about a worldwide cult with a vested interest in ensuring obedience. They make trillions of dollars.

They're not going to let something like "not having evidence" get in their way.

They'll completely destroy science for thousands of years just so they can prevent people from caring about evidence.

I want you to stop expecting science from religion.

>I reject him outright
Well, you're surely not alone. Most people do.

Sin is about being disobedient to God.
God has knowledge of good and evil.
He is not disobedient to himself and does not sin.

You realize that they just created a fictional character which they speak for and claim "can do no wrong".

It's literally an imaginary creation that they put words into the mouth of, including "cut off your foreskin".

>How the fuck is a CREED passed down and then written by someone else years after the events that allegedly took place firsthand or even secondhand eyewitness testimonies?
creed in this context just means "formal statement of beliefs" coming from these people it would be "eyewitness testimony"
>3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
>4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,
>5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
>6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
>7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
this is all secondhand, paul didn't witness this himself.
>8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
this is firsthand, he's claiming to have witnessed this himself

>Those eyewitnesses didn't write
i'm not sure whether or not that's the case for the secondhand witnesses, but the method of transmission doesn't really matter, especially since he's drawing from so many different people who are describing the same event. but the last eyewitness did write it down (paul)
>it's all hearsay
no, hearsay is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
if you're getting the same story being corroborated by hundreds of people, it's not hearsay

> clone theory
i've never heard of this, but just judging by it's name it does sound really stupid

>Anti-medicine people die of crippling and painful diseases today, and they have proof that modern medicine works.
how is that analogous?
anti-medicine people aren't refusing medicine because they don't think it works, they're refusing it because they think it's immoral (for some dumb reason)

>by hundreds of people
Who read it in a book they were told to literally believe under pain of eternal torture, and usually present death.

It's a classic of both hearsay and coercion.

>Who read it in a book
huh? what book?

>because they think it's immoral
Exactly. And they are willing to accept horrible tortures for that obviously fictional belief.

Which is why claiming persecution does not grant validity to belief. People can be fully committed to believing falsehood, even unwittingly.

>And they are willing to accept horrible tortures for that obviously fictional belief.
they don't believe this belief to be fictional though.

your argument was against the notion that "these people being willing to die for what they claimed to have witnessed first hand" was evidence that actually believed what they'd seen.

How else would he become the most famous person ever? If not resurrected, then he would be forgotten.
There were hundreds of people and eventually thousands who saw him returning back to life.

>huh? what book?
If you study the history of Christianity, the first sources were purely oral traditions.

You only get to the "hundreds of people" point long after Historical Jesus was said to have lived.

The early oral teachings were mostly his sayings, while the mysticism was added much later on. Ex. John wasn't a real disciple.

In fact, there was much debate as to whether Jesus was even related to Judaism before the enforcement of later dogma.

You both don't seem to understand that you have no evidence people saw anything. That is a claim.

I can claim right now that hundreds of people saw X.

And in fact if Islam conquers you, it will be Muhammad who is famous. That is what makes the religion famous: forcibly converting people.

>creed in this context just means "formal statement of beliefs" coming from these people it would be "eyewitness testimony"
Yes, BELIEFS. The fact that they believed in something that was told them isn't evidence of anything but the existence of a predominant belief.

>this is all secondhand, paul didn't witness this himself
Right, he heard from other people who heard from other people.

>this is firsthand, he's claiming to have witnessed this himself
He can claim he saw Mohammed riding a flying horse, that doesn't make it true.

>describing the same event
>same story being corroborated by hundreds of people
What if they told the same story because they WERE TOLD the same fucking story since the very beginning of the religion?

>i've never heard of this, but just judging by it's name it does sound really stupid
It's a theory about Jesus having a clone/twin brother/lookalike who showed up after he died and posed as a resurrected Jesus to the apostles.

I understand, God doesn't play by his own rules.

>the first sources were purely oral traditions.
so i ask again, what book?
>You only get to the "hundreds of people" point long after Historical Jesus was said to have lived.
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." (1 Cor 15:5)
this statement was from "from only a few years after Jesus' death." according to secular historians

>eyewitness testimony is not evidence
>all of history is fake
i'm not replying to you anymore unless you say something that demonstrates intelligence

A medieval forgery made using photosensitive chemicals, a camera obscura, a hanging cadaver, and a few weeks of exposure are sufficient evidence that a man came back to life bursting with light 2K years ago.

>>eyewitness testimony is not evidence
>>all of history is fake

>pretending like mundane historical events are the same as a supposed "magical" historical event

That is an allegory for the rulers of the religion setting rules for the masses which they themselves 'are above'. Basics of how 'nobles' treat 'peasants'. And that is one reason the religion exists as it does, to help enforce that.

It's a myth. It's like every other historical myth, from Heracles to Inanna.

>>eyewitness testimony is not evidence
Then you must literally believe that Ra delivered hieroglyphics to the Egyptians, as they attest to this with many thousands of people.

And since Egypt predates Christianity, I may then state that Ra is more powerful than the Christian deity.

We have evidence that Hebrew evolved out of Heiroglyphics, thus by your logic you must accept that the Egyptian deities created your deity, in accordance with the attestations of the Egyptian Priests who communed with Ra, and gained knowledge that he created the universe from a lotus blossom.

>The fact that they believed in something that was told them
that's not what's being said though.
the secondhand sources paul has written down are telling us what the secondhand sources witnessed.
>he heard from other people who heard from other people.
no.
>He can claim he saw Mohammed riding a flying horse, that doesn't make it true.
finally, something we agree on
>What if they told the same story because they WERE TOLD the same fucking story since the very beginning of the religion?
because they were claiming to have witnessed it, and secular historians say paul received it from them the month or year of the event having actually taken place.

So you don't have to pay for knowledge today if you go to a University from those who have knowledge?
At that time particular time humans didn't have knowledge of good or bad. There is nothing that says they couldn't have earned the ability to have it.
Yes, God had knowledge they didn't. He may have wanted them to earn it. The sin Adam made was being disobedient to God.
Would you set rules for yourself that are different for the rules you set for a young child?Why shouldn't he set rules that are different for him than for his children?

Jesus Christ -> Je suis = I am + Christ conscious = self-conscious = christ = self. I am self.
Like Jiminy Cricket in Pinochio = conscience
Jesus Christ is metaphora of self-conscience.

>I want Christians to prove Jesus really resurrected.

That's ridiculous.

youtube.com/watch?v=7ijXIJRMhKE

youtube.com/watch?v=RWfTv-fmhhs

>the secondhand sources paul has written down are telling us what the secondhand sources witnessed.

Why should I or anyone trust what Paul said. He has a very very very good reason to lie about all this

>Roman army best in known world
>Caesar himself seals tomb
>EY bois, let's go gravedigging
>Roman soldiers find 11 fishermen easy fight
>Body still in tomb

>the secondhand sources paul has written down are telling us what the secondhand sources witnessed.
>because they were claiming to have witnessed it
But who is telling us that? We only have Paul's word on it.

He says there are hundreds of people who have witnessed something, but there's no way to verify that. The only thing we know is that there was a widespread BELIEF about what some people claimed to have witnessed.

If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, how could they know disobeying god was wrong?

>He has a very very very good reason to lie about all this
yeah, being a Christian had made his life great
>24 Five times I received from the Jews forty lashes less one.
>25 Three times I was beaten with a rod. Once I received a stoning. Three times I suffered shipwreck. A night and a day I spent adrift in the open sea.
>26 I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,
>27 in hard work and toil, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, many times without food, in cold and without enough clothing. (2 Corinthians 11:24-27)
must've been easy to give up being a pharisee

Prove he didn't.