Aliens

[gracedwithlife]

Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?

The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?

The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.

Group hallucinations are impossible, but mass delusions and false memories are, and have been demonstrated. Also, it's easy to redact text after the fact.

Again, there is no primary sources for Jesus's existence.

[gracedwithlife]

Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?

The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.

Group hallucinations are impossible, but mass delusions and false memories are, and have been demonstrated. Also, it's easy to redact text after the fact.

Again, there is no primary sources for Jesus's existence.

Delusion is believing something not true. But the Apostles were not just believing something, they also said they saw Jesus.

A false memory is also believing something not  true. But again, the Apostles were not just believing something in a memory, but they also said they saw Jesus.

The Apostles never changed their story to their martyrdom as recorded in Scripture and earliest church fathers so there was nothing to redact.

There are no primary sources for anyone in antiquity so if you reject Christ, you have to deny the existence of every human being from antiquity, but I don't know any credible scholars or historians who use your approach. You're on the fringe on your own which is the condition of someone eternally separated from God, for he goes his own way not listening to the guidance of his Creator.

In short you can say that you are delusional.

[aileron]

There are no primary sources for anyone in antiquity so if you reject Christ, you have to deny the existence of every human being from antiquity...

WFT?????  This is the dumbest thing I've ever read here, and that's saying a lot.

[gracedwithlife]

You heard right. To deny it is dumb. The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ.

[aileron]

You heard right. To deny it is dumb. The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ.

 :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:

You're such an idiot.

[gracedwithlife]

Ditto.

It's amazing how delusional you prefer to remain.

[aileron]

Ditto.

LOL... Ditto...

I'm not the one making such an asinine claim as this:

"The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ."

Are you willing to place a large bet on this based on your VAST ignorance of world history?

[gracedwithlife]

"The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ."

That's a fact. You're being asinine. Why don't you want to accept reality?

[gracedwithlife]

Whether you place the books of the NT days or weeks or years or even a decade or two after their events they are still closer to the events written about than for anyone in antiquity.

I suggest you do some homework.

[aileron]

"The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ."

That's a fact. You're being asinine. Why don't you want to accept reality?

The depth of your willful ignorance has gone beyond entertaining into disturbing.  Perhaps you should call the storied museums of the world and tell them it's safe to destroy the contemporaneous and much older than NT accounts of regal reins, commerce, wars, etc. recorded on stone and clay tablets, columns, obelisks, tombs, walls, etc.

[FrankDK]

> Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?

No, you misunderstood me.  I didn't ask why the resurrection of Jesus was evidence.  I asked where is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection?  You don't have any.

> The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.

Actually, no, they are quite common, especially among the devoutly religious.  Google "miracles at Lourdes" for a short list.  Or consider UFO reports.  Many people report having seen the same aliens at the same time.  Aliens, or group hallucinations?

We have absolutely no first-hand testimony that Jesus arose.  The earliest writings that mention Jesus are by Paul, who not only never saw Jesus, but who says Jesus wasn't an historical figure.  The gospels were written many years later and contain so many historical, cultural, and geographical errors that it is clear that the writers were never even near the sites they write about.

The Bible says that when Jesus was crucified, people arose from their graves and "appeared unto many."  If that had happened, we would have contemporaneous references to it.  We have contemporaneous reference to John the Baptist and others of the time, but none to Jesus or any of the things attributed to him in the Bible.

Besides, all religions have nonsense stories like that.  Many people witnessed Mohammed's ascent to Heaven.  Does that mean it must be true?  Many people saw the Buddha walk three steps when he was three days old.  Does that mean it must be true?

No, it only means that the story was made up to make the religious figure look miraculous.

Where is the evidence that Jesus was resurrected?

Frank

[gracedwithlife]

aileron,

The documents you are referring to are copies of copies and usually hundreds of years later so that is certainly not contemporary, unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.

Take for example Aristotle the earliest known copy we have is 1400 years later.

By your standard Aristotle never existed and none of his works ever came from him.

[mykcob4]

The documents you are referring to are copies of copies and usually hundreds of years later so that is certainly not contemporary, unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.

There are NO surviving parchments of the so-called original new testiment...so you're lying.
And the only documents from the middle east that survived from the 1st century are all Roman documents and some jewish chronicals. None of them even mention a Jesus Christ. Not one. Not even the censuses of the time.
Come on MODS ban this stupid lying troll!

[gracedwithlife]

The documents you are referring to are copies of copies and usually hundreds of years later so that is certainly not contemporary, unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.

There are NO surviving parchments of the so-called original new testiment...so you're lying.
And the only documents from the middle east that survived from the 1st century are all Roman documents and some jewish chronicals. None of them even mention a Jesus Christ. Not one. Not even the censuses of the time.
Come on MODS ban this stupid lying troll!

This is common knowledge. There are two NT papyri still surviving from the late first century and about 15 from the 2nd century. In fact, you can quote the entire NT except for 11 verses from the earliest church fathers in the 2nd century.

So there is really no comparison to other figure in antiquity. If you are going to throw out Jesus you have to throw out everyone. But I don't know any scholars or historians who would be as belligerent as you.