Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So many think that Christians live boring lives and dont know how to have fun.

What do you do for fun?

I like to be on the Internet and play games. I like to read at times and color. I like to do other fun things.

Hahha..
I think thats one of the funniest things I've read on here.

what's so funny about it?

Have premarital sex = Funner than coloring and reading.

But seriously, Jesus is a blast, some of the best jokes of all time have been involving Jesus, some of the best Simpsons bits have been jokes about Christianity or Jesus.

Whya re you on the internet? Don't you know that the internet is the spawn of Satan?

All information regarding how to live you're life is on here, And god forbid that anything esle but the bible tell you how to live your life.

There are intrudders that go inside you're computer and collect infrmation, yes yes.

And it uses ELECTRICITY. That is the hardest coldest proof that the internet is evil.

Electricity and people who bring life to machines.

But really, Jesus Is Magic

(Link takes time, right click save as to save time)

Jesus is fun.


JesuseyGoodness, Blessing and kicking ass since 1 AD

Originally posted by JesuseyGoodness
(...)

JesuseyGoodness, Blessing and kicking ass since 1 AD

PieLover, I have never appriciated you as much as I have at this very moment.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
PieLover, I have never appriciated you as much as I have at this very moment.
Thanks much Koala.


But seriously. Jesus rules.

I should put that in my sig.

Originally posted by JesuseyGoodness
Thanks much Koala.


But seriously. Jesus rules.

I should put that in my sig.

And now you just lost it..

Oh well.

The Lord Giveth And The Lord taketh away.
But by the looks of you boy, the lord took everything away.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
And now you just lost it..

Oh well.

The Lord Giveth And The Lord taketh away.
But by the looks of you boy, the lord took everything away.
T'was rude. I continually look down upon the internet world, seeing as the intellegence and curtosy of it's user worsens by the day. Also, It is mostly people lacking self-esteem, and feel the need to belittle other they don't know. You are a prime example of this. I am prud to have met someone as blissfully ignorant as you. You are still an unnecessary component in everyone's life.

Congratulations,
JesuseyGoodness

Originally posted by JesuseyGoodness
T'was rude. I continually look down upon the internet world, seeing as the intellegence and curtosy of it's user worsens by the day. Also, It is mostly people lacking self-esteem, and feel the need to belittle other they don't know. You are a prime example of this. I am prud to have met someone as blissfully ignorant as you. You are still an unnecessary component in everyone's life.

Congratulations,
JesuseyGoodness

Glad to be of Serivce.

BTW, this was SARCASM.

When I was a Christian, I still was fun....I'm just more fun now..

How can you have fun with a dead guy? I can see it now, a new book "500 ways to have fun with your dead Jesus". jk

I have had a lot of fun with christians.....

Originally posted by BackFire
Have premarital sex = Funner than coloring and reading.

But seriously, Jesus is a blast, some of the best jokes of all time have been involving Jesus, some of the best Simpsons bits have been jokes about Christianity or Jesus.
oh man ur funny...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How can you have fun with a dead guy? I can see it now, a new book "500 ways to have fun with your dead Jesus". jk No it should be 1001 ways to play with Jesus......

I used to think Jesus was this boring religious guy who had a halo over Him and had no sense of humor whatsoever and never laughed and never smiled and had no clue how to have fun.

That is until I met Him and came to know Him I found out what a bunch of garbage that was.

Originally posted by HairyPooper
I used to think Jesus was this boring religious guy who had a halo over Him and had no sense of humor whatsoever and never laughed and never smiled and had no clue how to have fun.

That is until I met Him and came to know Him I found out what a bunch of garbage that was.

You met him? You are delusional, he has been dead for 2000 years.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Whya re you on the internet? Don't you know that the internet is the spawn of Satan?

All information regarding how to live you're life is on here, And god forbid that anything esle but the bible tell you how to live your life.

There are intrudders that go inside you're computer and collect infrmation, yes yes.

And it uses ELECTRICITY. That is the hardest coldest proof that the internet is evil.

Electricity and people who bring life to machines.

But really, Jesus Is Magic

(Link takes time, right click save as to save time)




Im on the internet to annoy people.

No seriously, the Internet is not evil. Yes it has evil things on it, but in and of itself it is not evil.

Ive nothing against electricity. Im not Amish. (No offense to the Amish.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You met him? You are delusional, he has been dead for 2000 years.


Yes I met Him.

No Im not delusional.

And can you please prove He is still dead?

Originally posted by HairyPooper
Yes I met Him.

No Im not delusional.

And can you please prove He is still dead?

You are insane then. Prove to me that King Tut is still alive.

Originally posted by HairyPooper
Yes I met Him.

No Im not delusional.

And can you please prove He is still dead?

He is still dead because he is not alive...Are you sure you're not delusional?

prove that he resurrected

Originally posted by finti
prove that he resurrected

Well, you resurrected.

Hallelujah to the Risen Savior!

HP, the act of conversion doesn't work over the internet...

Originally posted by HairyPooper
Im on the internet to annoy people.

No seriously, the Internet is not evil. Yes it has evil things on it, but in and of itself it is not evil.

Ive nothing against electricity. Im not Amish. (No offense to the Amish.) The Amish use a limited amount of electricity. I think they have battery operated stuff.

Originally posted by debbiejo
He is still dead because he is not alive...Are you sure you're not delusional? He is not on earth but that doesn't mean he is dead.

Originally posted by finti
prove that he resurrected It's called faith something you don't have. If you never been to Iraq prove to me that there is a war going on over there. You read it do you believe everything you read, you can see pictures of it but they can be forged. Somethings you just have to accept as truth or else you can't prove anything.

no I was around just not in here

but I do have faith only that my faith is in the real world not into something superstitious.
prove to you a war is going on?, well attend the funerals of a returned dead soldiers, theres all the proof you need of a ongoing war
yeah but story of this jesus christ and his deeds aint equal with the truth, if it was the real truth we all would accept it. jesus followers wants and really believes this to be the truth just as muslims wants and believes in their ways to be the truth.

Originally posted by markie
He is not on earth but that doesn't mean he is dead. If he's not on earth then yes, it does mean he's dead just like everybody else.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are insane then. Prove to me that King Tut is still alive.


I need not prove anything. You made the claim Jesus is dead. Now is up to you to prove it.



But if I was insane, I would be spitting and drolling and ripping out my eyes and screaming stuff like...

EEEEEEE! ARRRRRRRRR! MAAAAA NNEEEEE RRRRRRR!! AAAAGGHHHH!!!!!

Originally posted by finti
prove that he resurrected


Ok that is fair.

Sin embargo (however), then someone needs to prove He didnt.

I will deal with this on a few posts.

Bear with me.

Originally posted by HairyPooper
I need not prove anything. You made the claim Jesus is dead. Now is up to you to prove it.



But if I was insane, I would be spitting and drolling and ripping out my eyes and screaming stuff like...

EEEEEEE! ARRRRRRRRR! MAAAAA NNEEEEE RRRRRRR!! AAAAGGHHHH!!!!!

Hey! man, calm down. Last time I talked to Jesus, he told me himself that he was dead.

This is one of the most important questions of all of history. If Jesus arose from the dead, then what he said about himself is true. If he did not arise from the dead, then what he said about himself is not true. Jesus claimed to be the only way to God (John 14:6). He claimed to be able to forgive sins (Luke 5:20). He also claimed to be divine (John 8:24; 8:58 with Exodus 3:14). Therefore, his extraordinary claims are tied to his resurrection. Of course, it is one thing to "say" that Jesus arose from the dead, it is another thing to prove it. But the problem is we cannot prove that he rose from the dead. The reason is because the documents that describe him or 2000 years old. At best, all we can do is look at those documents to determine if they are reliable and accurate. If they are, then we simply need to look at what they say to seeing if they support his resurrection or not. It is then up to the individual to accept or reject the claims those presented. This becomes an important issue because a person's presuppositions will govern how he interprets the data. If a person presupposes that God does not exist, or that miracles cannot happen, then it would be virtually impossible to convince such a person that the resurrection occurred. On the other hand if a person presupposes that there is a God and that miracles can happen, then it would be easier to convince a person that the resurrection of Jesus happened. So, what are your presuppositions? Do your presuppositions allow you to objectively look at the evidence in order to make an "unbiased" conclusion about it? In my paper Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? I cover the information necessary to validate the New Testament documents as being accurate and reliably transmitted to us today. If you are interested in reading a more detailed examination of this, please click on the link above. Nevertheless, I will review the information in brief here.

First of all, the New Testament documents have a greater reliability to them in any other set of ancient documents in existence. The New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This means that there is less than 1/2 of 1% of all the 26,000 copies we have of the various documents included in the New Testament. Added to this the incredible redundancy of copies, and their almost 100 percent agreement, and we can easily conclude that the transmission of the documents to us has been extremely reliable. If anyone or to dismiss the New Testament documents by saying that they are corrupted, that he must also throw out all other ancient documents including those of the writings of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and many others, etc., because none of them come close to approaching the number of manuscripts in existence nor the reliability, nor the accuracy of the copies then exists in the New Testament documents.

Second, since the documents are reliable then what we must do is look at them to determine whether or not the content supports the resurrection of Jesus. At this point, it becomes very easy to demonstrate this since the Bible definitely teaches that Jesus rose from the dead. There are many scriptures that teach Jesus' resurrection. Following are three of them.

Luke 24:56, "and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 "He is not here, but He has risen..."
John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken."
1 Cor. 15:3-4, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
Did Jesus rise from the dead? According to the Bible, yes He did.

you may see this at www.carm.org

Im not done yet.

Even though the bible teaches us that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body that He died in and that His resurrected body was a glorified body, people still resist accepting this truth -- to their detriment. Various objections are raised against such biblical support as...


"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21).
"When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, "Peace be with you." 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20).
"And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).
It seems clear that Jesus' physical resurrection is a reality. Unfortunately, objections to it have been raised.

Objection 1: Jesus was put to death physically but was raised spiritually according to 1 Pet. 3:18.
1 Pet. 3:18 is often used as a counter John 2:19-21. Instead of harmonizing the Scriptures, some people use one scripture to "refute" another or to justify their interpretations which seem to favor their positions. Such is the case with 1 Pet. 3:18-19:

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit," (1 Pet. 3:18).

The point that they try to make in this verse is that Jesus did not rise in the flesh, but "in the spirit." Some even say that Jesus ceased to exist and then was made alive" in the spirit. However, because Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:1,14), His spirit is immortal and does not need to be made alive. Nevertheless, they assert that Jesus was not speaking literally in John 2:19-21, otherwise it would contradict their doctrine that Jesus did not rise physically. Of course, they are incorrect. Here is why.

Let's look at the context of 1 Pet. 3:18. Here is 1 Pet. 3:17-20,

"For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. 18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water." (1 Pet. 3:17-20).

We must acknowledge right away that these verses have different interpretations among scholars. It says Jesus was in the spirit when He went and made proclamation. But what does that mean? Did Jesus, between the time of his death and resurrection, go and make a proclamation to spirits in prison, or was it after His resurrection? Also, the Greek word used is "proclaim," (karuso) not "preach," (evangelizo), so it was not a message of salvation to those spirits in prison. Also, who are the spirits, angels or men? In the spirit realm, angels are said to be in prison (Rev. 20:7; 2 Pet. 2:4), but never people. What was the proclamation? Most probably, it was the proclamation of Christ's victory at the cross, according to scripture, which was proclaimed to spirits of old who were disobedient in the time of Noah and who were being held in bonds (See also, 2 Pet. 2:4-5).

In my opinion, between His death and resurrection, Jesus went and made a proclamation of His victory on the cross to those fallen angels who were being held in prison. But since there is no definitive answer on this, I am open to further discussion on it.
Verse 18 does not require the interpretation that Jesus did not rise physically. In fact, logically speaking, if we held to the "spirit only" idea of His resurrection, we would have a contradiction with other verses in the Bible; namely, John 2:19-21 and Luke 24:39 cited above. Since John 2:19 clearly teaches that the temple of Christ's body was raised, 1 Pet. 3:18, which has different interpretations among scholars, cannot be held in a way that would contradict other, clearer scriptures such as John 2:19-21 and Luke 24:39).
Furthermore, different Bibles translate verse 18 differently. Some say Jesus was "made alive by the Spirit" (KJV, NKJV, NIV, MLB) while others say "...made alive in the spirit" (NASB, NEB, RSV, JB, and the 1901 ASV). It is certainly possible that Jesus was made alive by the Holy Spirit which is consistent with the Trinitarian aspect of Jesus' resurrection where God raised Jesus (1 Thess. 1:10), the Father raised Jesus (Gal. 1:1), and Jesus raised Himself (John 2:19-21), and the Holy Spirit was also involved in His resurrection (Rom. 8:11). It is also accurate to say that Jesus was raised in the spirit in that His spiritual body, which is His physical glorified body, was quickened, made alive, became real as the first fruits of all creation (1 Cor. 15:20).

Finally, it is our bodies that are redeemed as well, not just our spirits. "And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body," (Rom. 9:23). The body here spoken of is the physical one, not a "spiritual" non-flesh body.
To summarize about this verse: 1 Pet. 3:18 does not say that Jesus was raised a spirit creature. It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body. This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" a life giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is the same with Jesus.

Objection 2: The Bible says that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50), therefore, Jesus could not have been raised from the dead in the same body He died in.
The problem with this objection is that it fails to recognize the fact that after the resurrection, Jesus said, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:39), not "flesh and blood." This is not simply a play on words. Every word in the Bible is inspired and this phrase was used by Jesus on purpose.
The term "flesh and blood" is a phrase used in scripture in different contexts, but denotes the natural order.
"And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven," (Matt. 16:17).
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," (Eph. 6:12).
"Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil," (Heb. 2:14).

Jesus had shed His blood on the cross. It quite literally had drained out of His body. We see that when Jesus rose from the dead, He still had the holes in His hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Since He retained the characteristics of His bodily ordeal, it is logical to state that His blood, which was literally drained from His body, was likewise still shed. Therefore, His body could be raised and the blood remained shed as the thing that "makes atonement": "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11).
That is why after the resurrection, to prove that He had risen in the same body He died in, Jesus told people to touch His hands and feet because it was the hands and feet that had the holes in them. What more proof do you need to but see and touch the very same hands and feet that had the holes in them from the nails on the cross! Furthermore, in the same statement Jesus said that He possessed flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. He had risen!

Objection 3: The sacrificial offering was the body of Christ, therefore, it could not rise lest the sacrifice be made invalid by "being taken back."
The answer to this objection is similar to the one above.
Jesus' resurrection is the proof that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father who had promised, "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay," (Psalm 16:10). Because Jesus offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, He was guaranteed a physical resurrection. You see, physical death is the result of sin. But, Jesus successfully took care of the sin problem and, in the process, conquered death which is the result of sin (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:56). The proof is found in the fact that He rose from the dead in the same body He died in.
Furthermore, the truth is that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and took our place (2 Cor. 5:21). His body was used as the means to shed the blood that cleanses of sin.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11).
"And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb. 9:22).
So, the blood of Christ is what removes our sin and the physical resurrection of Christ is proof that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father.

and you couldnt fit this into one post in stead of a bunch of nada posts

Objection 5: The Father raised Jesus; He didn't do it Himself, therefore John 2:19-21 cannot be literal because Jesus didn't raise Himself.
This objection simply fails to take into account the Trinitarian nature of God and the resurrection. We see that each of the member of the Godhead was involved in the resurrection of Christ.

Father - "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)," (Gal. 1:1).
Son - "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21).
The Holy Spirit - "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you," (Rom. 8:11).
Likewise for further clarification, we see that other Trinitarian aspects are observed throughout scripture on different subjects: Each is called God: Father (Phil. 1:2), the Son (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Each is the Creator: Father (Isaiah 64:8; 44:24), the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17), and the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4; 26:13). Each indwells (Father (2 Cor. 6:16), the Son (Col. 1:27), and the Holy Spirit (John 14:17). . . etc.
When looking at the whole of scripture we see no contradiction dealing with Jesus' resurrection. Instead, we see an affirmation of the truth that Jesus did, in fact, raise His body just as He said He would in John 2:19-21.

again you may see this at www.carm.org

Im still not done.

copy pasting well here I see

Jesus is TONS of fun!

He's everyone's buddy, and even a powerful Magic card!

http://www.magiclibrary.net/rarities/inquest-buddy-jesus.jpg

Jesus owes me 5 bucks.

When someone says that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead, he is speaking logically. The fact is that probability strongly works against Jesus rising from the dead. After all, how many people have risen from the dead in this century? If it had happened, would not the news have reported it? Would not the doctors have known about it? Anyone rising from the dead would be a noteworthy event. So, on one hand, it is true that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead. However, on the other hand is not.
If there were no God in the universe and if all things followed the natural laws that we know and universe then indeed it would be highly improbable that anyone would rise from the dead. But if there were a God who controls the natural laws and is in fact the author of those laws, then it would be easy for him to raise someone from the dead. The issue of improbability cannot be examined without examining the concept of whether or not God exists. After all, if he does exist the resurrection of Christ is certainly possible. So we see that someone's presuppositions about the existence of God will affect whether or not he or she can accept the idea that Jesus can rise from the dead. Even though statistically it is not normal that anyone would rise from the dead, the statistical improbability does not mean that it is impossible.
But we see in the New Testament eyewitness accounts of people seeing Jesus after He was crucified, died, and buried. Take, for example, the following accounts of Jesus appearing after His death and burial.

Does the New Testament provide extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Christ? Quite frankly, yes it does. It does in that the eyewitness accounts which were written down by the apostles of Christ, were preserved on an extraordinary good level. There is absolutely no comparable ancient document or documents that even approaches the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament documents. This is indeed extraordinary. To see more on this, please read "Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' resurrection?"
Just because something is improbable, does not mean that it is impossible. Given that God exists in that he is involved in human history, and that Jesus performed many miracles, walked on water, and raised others from the dead, it is not improbable to conclude that he has risen from the dead. In fact, in light of the eyewitness accounts that have been accurately transmitted to us, it is perfectly reasonable to trust in his resurrection.

Sometimes critics of Christianity say that Jesus' disciples were mistaken about His resurrection. They say that because no one can rise from the dead, then the disciples were wrong when they said that Jesus rose from the dead. First of all, they are assuming something that may not be true. After all, if there is a God, then why can't a resurrection happen? But, when I ask them to explain how it was possible to be mistaken about something like a person rising from the dead according to the gospel accounts, I don't get any answers except, "Well, they were wrong."
It is true that the disciples made mistakes. After all, they were only human. But, how could they be mistaken about something as serious and as monumental as Jesus rising from the dead? Is it likely that they simply goofed, that somehow after seeing Jesus die on the cross, and after fleeing and going into hiding, that the figure that appeared before them in the closed room that looked like Jesus and sounded like Jesus and had holes in His hands and feet really wasn't Jesus? Were the women who saw the empty tomb also mistaken when they looked into it and saw that the body wasn't there? Was the apostle John mistaken when he said that Jesus appeared before Thomas and said, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing," (John 20:27). Was it Jesus or not? If not, then who was it? Did the disciples make up the story? Did the apostle John lie when he wrote the account? If so, where are the records refuting this preposterous notion? There aren't any.

Is it possible that all the disciples were mistaken about the same thing at the same time especially when they were believing that Jesus had died and was still dead? What would cause them all to switch from believing that when you're dead you're dead to believing that Jesus died and rose from the dead? Was Paul the apostle also mistaken when he was riding along the road to Damascus and claims to have encountered Jesus? Remember, Paul was a persecutor the Christians. He had authority to arrest the Christians and imprison them. He was a devout Jew and quite powerful in the Jewish religious system. How is it that he changed his mind so drastically and claims to have seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1)? Was he also simply mistaken? If so, how? What did he see on the road to Damascas that changed his life if not something incredible?
Is all of Christianity a big "oops"? Might we meet the disciples in the afterlife and have them say to us, "Uh, remember that resurrection thing about Jesus we wrote about? Well, we goofed. It really didn't happen. We mistook the empty tomb -- never did find His body -- the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him rising (Psalm 16:10), the prophecy of Jesus saying He'd rise (John 2:19-21), the accounts of the women saying that they had seen Him risen, the appearances of a man who looked like Jesus and who had holes in his hands and feet and appeared to us in closed rooms, the conversion of Paul -- that was weird -- oh, and all those miracles He did and those that we then did afterwards, too, well, that was all a big mistake. Also, it was a big mistake going around Israel and all of the Mediterranean proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead while we suffered persecution and death...yeah, it was all a big mistake. Hope there are no hard feelings."
Is it rational to think that the disciples were simply mistaken about something as serious as stating that Jesus had risen from the dead? How do you mistake someone rising from the dead? What would have to happen for numerous people to change their minds about someone coming back to life? Or is it more rational to simply conclude that the disciples weren't mistaken and that Jesus actually did rise from the dead?

you may find all the above at www.carm.org

im still not done

This possibility has been raised by critics ever since Jesus rose from the dead. But it has never taken root except in some Jewish circles because the New Testament account does not support a faked resurrection theory. Nevertheless, in order for the disciples to have faked the resurrection of Jesus, several conditions must have been met. Let's take a look at them and analyze them.

The disciples would need to concoct an elaborate plan.
The disciples would have to have a plan. You can't just walk to a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers and ask for Jesus' body. So, in order to fake Jesus' resurrection the disciples would have to obtain and dispose of the body of Jesus without any hostile witnesses seeing them do this. This would mean that the guards in front of Jesus' tomb would need to be bribed (discussed later). It would further mean that several people would have to be involved in carrying the body of Jesus to an area where it could be disposed of. A single person would not be able to carry another human body a long distance. Therefore, these several people would have to agree to steal the body of Jesus and risk arrest by the guards and the Jewish leaders.
Furthermore, this plan would also have to include other people outside the circle of the disciples since such an "impossible" occurrence as a resurrection would be more convincing if others who were not biased followers of Jesus said that they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. This means that the disciples would have to convince a lot of people to go against the Jewish religious leaders, thereby risking their own economic and social security, as well as risk bringing conflict into the region since the Jews who sent Jesus to the cross, could easily persecute these new apparent converts. Additionally, this would bring further attention of the Romans to the issue thereby escalating tension which was not something the Jewish people wanted.
One more thing, it would be very obvious to the disciples that to continue claiming Jesus rose from the dead, would bring the harsh attention of the religious leaders upon them. Remember, the Jewish leaders knew who Jesus' disciples were. Therefore, easy attention could be focused on them in the form of persecution. Unlike others, the disciples would be easy targets. Since the Jewish leaders had just sentenced Jesus to die a horrible death on the cross, what would stop them from continuing with the disciples who would then start proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead? The disciples had to know what they were getting into. They were risking their families and their own lives.

In all, concocting an elaborate plan to deceive many people has too many difficult variables in it to overcome. It would simply make more sense to assert that the reason the disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus is because they actually saw the resurrected Jesus.
A sufficient motive would have to be offered to account for the disciples' intended deception?
Remember, we have many people in the Bible who said that Jesus rose from the dead. Did these people all agree to lie? If so, why would they do that? What would motivate various people, who have differences of opinions, differences in needs and desires, to all agree to testify to something false? Could it be that they were dissatisfied with the Roman Empire ruling over the Jewish nation? But what would they accomplish by proclaiming Jesus' resurrection? Did they think that the Roman Empire would suddenly leave Israel because of that? Not a chance.
Or perhaps the people were tired of the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders and it motivated them to claim Jesus rose from the dead in order to undermine their authority. But if this is the case then we have an inconsistency between motive and behavior because people who would be upset with someone else's hypocrisy are not likely to proclaim such an incredible lie as a resurrection -- thereby being even bigger hypocrites than the leaders. Does this make sense? Also, since Jesus taught love, truth, and self sacrifice, such deceptive actions would be in direct contradiction with the teachings of the One they were following.
At best all anyone can do is guess about what the disciples may have been thinking or what might have motivated them to devise an elaborate deception. Guessing is all that can be done. But we would need to ask if any proposed motives of the disciples could be harmonized with the facts of their preaching and teaching about truth, long-suffering, patience, kindness, and love. No one can read their hearts or their minds and insert into a scenario 2000 years old the motivations of people long gone. It is best to simply let the facts speak for themselves. They lived, suffered, proclaimed, and died for the truth of the resurrection.

Originally posted by HairyPooper
you may find all the above at www.carm.org

im still not done
the link reference is more than enough.

The body of Christ would need to be disposed of to prevent disproof of his resurrection.
If the scenario of an elaborate plan with bribed guards and collusion on the part of many non followers of Jesus were to be effective, the body of Jesus would need to be disposed of. If the disciples could get a hold of His body and get away from the population, it would not be difficult at all to bury it someplace. It would then be necessary that the disciples promised that they would never disclose the location. This is a possibility but it would mean that the disciples were liars and thieves. Is this basis for their faith consistent with their writings about truth, honesty, etc., combined with their dedication to their assertion of Jesus' resurrection that cost them their lives?

Various witnesses would need to be arranged
As I have already stated above, many people would be to be coached into lying about seeing the risen Lord. Is this probable for so many Jews who grew up under the idea that lying was a sin? Perhaps. But, is it easy to convince people to lie about an event that they know would bring them economic, familial, social, and religious difficulties? The answer, of course, is no it is not. The Jewish people were living under Roman rule. The Romans served both as oppressors and protectors. They were oppressors and that they forced many of their own rules upon the Jewish people. On the other hand, they protected the land of Israel from hostile nations surrounding them. Friction in the region is not something people would want to have, especially if they have families with children and parents to take care of and to love. Does it really makes sense that so many people would agree to such a great lie for such a great consequence?

Pooper your copy and pastes are too much to read...Make one point at a time ....Lay off the speed. I know your on something...

The Apostle Paul

But what about Paul the Apostle? Did the disciples plan on converting one of their greatest enemies into a Christian? How did they get Paul to agree to the conversion and in so doing convince Paul to give up everything he had stood for and worked for his entire life in order to be ostracized, condemned, persecuted, shipwrecked, beaten, and finally martyred by both the Romans and the Jewish leadership? Does a faked resurrection account for such a bold and profound conversion of someone who had been seeking to destroy the very Christians that he later proclaimed? Remember, Paul claimed to have seen the Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9; 1 Cor. 9:1)? What would motivate him to give up everything and to proclaim Christ's resurrection? What would he have to gain? Power? Money? Fame?
If Paul wanted power, then perhaps it could be said he achieved it since he wrote much of the New Testament and had great influence in the Christian Church. But, power is not what he demonstrated over anyone. The New Testament does not demonstrate any wielding of power. Some of Paul's writings are the greatest testimonies to truth, love and wisdom that have ever been written. Are the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 13, or Col. 3, and the entire book of Romans the words of one man who knew that everything he was writing and teaching was based on a lie just so he could get power? It just doesn't make sense to say so.
If it was money Paul was after, then why did he preach without charge (2 Cor. 11:7)? Why did he often go without food (2 Cor. 11:27)? Why did he have odd jobs in order to make a living (Acts 18:3)? It does not make sense to say that he was in it for the money.
If it was fame that he was after, then he certainly attained it. Paul the apostle is still a famous person throughout all of Western civilization. But we cannot know if this was a motive or not since we cannot ask him. What we can do is read what he wrote and do our best to discern his motives there. It would be up to the reader to read his epistles and see if the quest for fame is woven into his words. Personally, I see no such thing when I read his works. I see a man who preached Jesus and Him crucified and risen from the dead.

Conclusion

It is very unlikely that the disciples faked the resurrection of Christ. In summation, this is why:

They would need an elaborate plan involving many unpredictable elements: guards, other witnesses, etc.
There is a large problem in developing a motive to deceive that would be greater than the consequences of that deception. Remember, the disciples would be risking their security, safety, families, and their lives for their beliefs.
The guards at the tomb would have to be bribed, but the only bribing we see is from the Jewish leaders (Matt. 28:11-15) who had a very strong motivation to finish what they had started with Jesus.
Various witnesses not involved with the disciples would have to be obtained in order to validate the story. But this means that a strong incentive would have to be offered to the additional witnesses since their story would likely get them in deep trouble with the Jewish leadership.
The apostle Paul. He is a wild card. What illegitimate thing would motivate him to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus when it didn't happen? Remember, he was a heavy persecutor of the church. Something happened to change him. According to him, it was the appearance of the risen Lord Jesus.

all above is from www.carm.org

First of all, saying that there are no non biblical accounts of the resurrection does not invalidate the resurrection. The New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses before the death of the apostles. Therefore there were plenty of people around who could have contested the post crucifixion appearances of Christ. We must first understand that the Gospels are historical documents and they are reliable ones.

Second, it is not accurate to say that there are no extra biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ. There are other historians who have written about this. However, the problem with most of them is that they were not contemporaries of Jesus. They were written well after the fact. This, therefore, tends to invalidate the reliability of these extra biblical accounts according to the critics. But if the extra biblical accounts are not valid because they were written after the fact by non eyewitnesses, then that indirectly supports the gospel accounts which were written by the eyewitnesses, by those who knew Jesus, and encountered him after his resurrection.
Third, how do you have witnesses to the resurrection? Even the disciples didn't see Him rise from the dead. Instead, they saw Him after He had risen, as was evidenced by the wounds in His hands and side when He appeared to them (John 20:27). He appeared to those who most needed to see Him. They were the ones who had spent years with Him, watching Him do miracles, watching Him heal the sick, and teaching great wisdom and love. After Jesus died, their faith in Him had been shattered. It was necessary that Jesus appear to them in order to establish the truth of who He said He was; namely, God in flesh (John 8:24,58; 10:30-33).

Ya gonna paste the whole Bible?

I've read the Bible before, I already know what it says.

Make your point!

Fourth, Jesus would have to appear only to those who had seen Him before His crucifixion since appearing to someone who had never seen Him nor knew that He died, would prove nothing. This means that the ones whom Jesus would appear to were those who were following Him in the area of Israel. This further means that at best, other records of His resurrection would have to be hearsay, written well after the fact, by those who did not know Jesus.
Fifth, we do have non-biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus

No sign would be given

Jesus typically would not demonstrate anything miraculous to those who refused to believe in Him. It is, therefore, consistent with Jesus' method to demonstrate Himself to those who were in need of Him and who did not mock Him and doubt Him. Like it or not, this is how He operated. It would be logical to assume that He would deal in the same manner after His resurrection and only appear to those who knew Him and followed Him. For verification of Jesus' denial to those who doubted him, please note the following quotes.

If you don't just make a point, I'm gonna put you on my ignore list and not see anything you post.

Jesus plainly taught that He would not "perform" for those who denied Him. He did, however, do public miracles in order to validate who He was, God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:24; 8:58). This great truth is a matter of faith and is not something proven with a calculator or a camera. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God which, in that culture, meant to claim equality with God (John 5:18). Jesus said that "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) a statement that infuriated the Jews who were familiar with God's self description to Moses in Exodus 3:14 when He said, "I AM that I AM. Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." It is a claim made real by evidence. The evidence was His miracles.

Conclusion

The real issue of the resurrection deals with its evidence. This evidence consists of the testimony of many people who stated that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion and death. The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that? Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed? It makes more sense to believe that their actions were consistent with their teaching. In other words, they taught about self-sacrifice, dedication to truth, love, peace, etc., and they based it all on the risen Lord. It was based upon the truth that they had seen.


see www.carm.org

Originally posted by debbiejo
If you don't just make a point, I'm gonna put you on my ignore list and not see anything you post.

see www.carm.org for more interesting things to read.

Im not done yet.

Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead is one of the cardinal facts and doctrines of the gospel.


See a dramatic video on-line about the resurrection, a scene from The HOPE (or watch the entire film



First century tomb at the Church of Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem.

"Jesus' tomb" (Church of Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem). "There are two sites claiming to be the location of the tomb of Jesus: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb."

"Jesus' tomb" at the Garden Tomb (Jerusalem). "The Garden Tomb was identified as the tomb of Jesus only in the late 1800s and lacks historical credibility."

"A long tradition going back to the first century, however, maintains that Jesus' tomb is at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. In the 4th century, Constantine supposedly located the tomb site beneath a second century Roman temple. He constructed a church over it. This church has been restored and maintained over the centuries ever since. It is today shared by six faiths: Latin Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenians, Syrian, Copts and Ethiopians."


Information provided by Associates for Biblical Research. Photos provided by ChristianAnswers Associate, BiblePlaces

If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain (1 Cor. 15:14). The whole of the New Testament revelation rests on this as an historical fact. On the day of Pentecost, Peter argued the necessity of Christ's resurrection from the prediction in Psalm 16 (Acts 2:24-28). In his own discourses, also, our Lord clearly prophecied his resurrection (Matt. 20:19; Mark 9:9; 14:28; Luke 18:33; John 2:19-22).

The evangelists give accounts of the facts connected with that event, and the apostles, also, in their public teaching insist upon it.

Eleven different appearances of our risen Lord are recorded in the New Testament...

To Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre alone. This is recorded at length only by John (20:11-18), and alluded to by Mark (16:9-11).

To certain women, "the other Mary," Salome, Joanna, and others, as they returned from the sepulchre. Matthew (28:1-10) alone gives an account of this. (Compare Mark 16:1-8, and Luke 24:1-11.)

To Simon Peter alone on the day of the resurrection. (See Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5.)

To the two disciples on the way to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection, recorded fully only by Luke (24:13-35. Compare Mark 16:12,13).

To the ten disciples (Thomas being absent) and others "with them," at Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection day. One of the evangelists gives an account of this appearance, John (20:19-24).

To the disciples again (Thomas being present) at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:33-40; John 20:26-28. See also 1 Cor. 15:5).

To the disciples when fishing at the Sea of Galilee. Of this appearance also John (21:1-23) alone gives an account.

To the eleven, and above 500 brethren at once, at an appointed place in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:6; compare Matt. 28:16-20).

To James, but under what circumstances we are not informed (1 Cor. 15:7).

To the apostles immediately before the ascension. They accompanied him from Jerusalem to Mount Olivet, and there they saw him ascend "till a cloud received him out of their sight" (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:4-10).

It is worthy of note that it is distinctly related that on most of these occasions our Lord afforded his disciples the amplest opportunity of testing the fact of his resurrection. He conversed with them face to face. They touched him (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:27), and he ate bread with them (Luke 24:42,43; John 21:12,13).

In addition to the above, mention might be made of Christ's manifestation of himself to Paul at Damascus, who speaks of it as an appearance of the risen Savior (Acts 9:3-9, 17; 1 Cor. 15:8; 9:1).

It is implied in the words of Luke (Acts 1:3) that there may have been other appearances of which we have no record.

Who performed the resurrection?

The resurrection is spoken of as the act of all three persons of the Trinity...

of God the Father (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:24; 3:15; Rom. 8:11; Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12; Heb. 13:20)

of Christ himself (John 2:19; 10:18)

of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 3:18)

Why is the resurrection important?


The resurrection is a public testimony of Christ's release from his undertaking as surety, and an evidence of the Father's acceptance of his work of redemption. It is a victory over death and the grave for all his followers.

The importance of Christ's resurrection will be seen when we consider that if he rose the gospel is true, and if he rose not it is false. His resurrection from the dead makes it manifest that his sacrifice was accepted.

Our justification was secured by his obedience to the death, and therefore he was raised from the dead (Rom. 4:25).

Our justification was secured by his obedience to the death, and therefore he was raised from the dead (Rom. 4:25).

His resurrection is a proof that he made a full atonement for our sins, that his sacrifice was accepted as a satisfaction to divine justice, and his blood a ransom for sinners. It is also a pledge and an earnest of the resurrection of all believers (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:47-49; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). As he lives, they shall live also.

It proved him to be the Son of God, inasmuch as it authenticated all his claims (John 2:19; 10:17).

"If Christ did not rise, the whole scheme of redemption is a failure, and all the predictions and anticipations of its glorious results for time and for eternity, for men and for angels of every rank and order, are proved to be chimeras. 'But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.' Therefore the Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation. The kingdom of darkness has been overthrown, Satan has fallen as lightning from heaven, and the triumph of truth over error, of good over evil, of happiness over misery is for ever secured" (Hodge).

Originally posted by HairyPooper
see www.carm.org for more interesting things to read.
It is actually interesting...
Viewing christian points of view in various topics.

What about claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

With reference to the report which the Roman soldiers were bribed (Matt. 28:12-14) to circulate concerning Christ's resurrection, "his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept," Matthew Henry in his "Commentary," under John 20:1-10, fittingly remarks,

"The grave-clothes in which Christ had been buried were found in very good order, which serves for an evidence that his body was not 'stolen away while men slept.' Robbers of tombs have been known to take away 'the clothes' and leave the body; but none ever took away 'the body' and left the clothes, especially when they were 'fine linen' and new (Mark 15:46). Any one would rather choose to carry a dead body in its clothes than naked. Or if they that were supposed to have stolen it would have left the grave-clothes behind, yet it cannot be supposed they would find leisure to 'fold up the linen.'"

Some critics charge that the Gospels have obscured the historical Jesus of Nazareth by cloaking Him in layers of legend and myth. They claim that the Bible's stories of Christ's resurrection are myth, not history. There are at least FOUR REASONS why the mythological interpretation fails.

Jesus was a Buddhist if he existed...http://www.tombofjesus.com/news/FAQ/

Comparative literature demonstrates that myth takes a number of generations to develop. There are no parallels in other literature of myth developing and being believed in the presence of eye-witnesses and within the short timeframe in which the New Testament was formed. (for more info)
Historical research is on the side of an immediate belief in Jesus' resurrection. An early apostle's creed includes the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and has been dated by many scholars to within 3 to 7 years of Christ's death and resurrection. This implies prior public belief. Scholars agree that the first letters by St. Paul appeared within 25 years or less of Jesus ministry, and the four Gospels within 21 (and no later than 65 years). The preaching of the apostles always centered on the Resurrection. In a very short period of time, devout Jews throughout the Roman Empire who had formerly faithfully worshiped God on the seventh day of each week, converted to Christianity and began meeting on the first day, in celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Hundreds of witnesses saw Christ alive after his death. Once he appeared to 500 people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Many of these eyewitnesses to Christ's public ministry were hostile toward the Jesus the Gospels describe (Matthew 12:22f). These opponents had both motives and means to correct falsehoods about Him had the first disciples attempted them. Yet their opportunity did not produce a serious correction.

The Gospels don't resemble either Greek myth or Jewish legend. In contrast to those, the Gospels understate and lack embellishment, yet contain details counterproductive to the invention of legendary heroes. For example, the following six factors in John chapter 20 are at odds with the tendency of legendary material:

With great restraint, no attempt is made to describe the resurrection itself.

Mary neither initially recognized the risen Jesus (the "hero" (John 20:14).

nor even considered that there was anything special about Him (John 20:16).

Indeed, even by the end of the day, the disciples (the secondary "heroes" were still in hiding "for fear of the Jews" (John 20:19).

And, were the Gospels the free creation of paternalistic bias, as feminists charge, it is incredible the writers would have chosen women to be the first witnesses of the risen Jesus. The testimony of women didn't even count legally.

Yet, it was their courage the morning after the Resurrection that put the men's contrasting cowardice to shame.

Jews were the poorest of candidates for inventing a mythical Christ. No other culture has so opposed mythically confusing deity with humanity, as did the Jewish.

the above and what is coming are from

www.christiananswers.net

The most powerful sign of all that Jesus is who he claims to be, namely the Son of God, is his resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4). This is a question with huge implications: Did it happen? Is the Resurrection story the great exception to the "usual dreary end of human life?"

Many now consider the Resurrection to be one of the most sure and certain events of history. A critical debate on the question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" took place recently between world-renowned atheistic philosopher, Dr. Anthony Flew, and New Testament scholar and Christian, Dr. Gary Habermas. A panel of five philosophers from leading universities judged the outcome. What was the conclusion? Four votes for Habermas. None for Flew. And one draw. Flew was judged to have retreated into philosophical sophistry while evading the widely-acknowledged historical facts cited by Dr. Habermas.

I'm leaving this thread and never coming back because you babble too much without looking at what other people post which is an arrogant thing to do.....So, are Christians supposed to be arrogant?

Hairy I'm sorry, but I am tired of your one way convection. I am ignoring you now.

TWELVE WIDELY-ACKNOWLEDGED HISTORICAL FACTS

These facts (per Habermas) include:



Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion.

Jesus was buried.

Jesus' death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

Many scholars hold that Jesus' tomb was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

At this time, the disciples had real experiences that they believed to be literal experiences of the risen Jesus.

The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify with Jesus, to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection, even being willing to die for this belief.

The resurrection was central to their message.

The resurrection was proclaimed in Jerusalem where the empty tomb was. As a result...

The church was born and grew...

...with Sunday the primary day of worship.

James, Jesus' skeptical brother, was converted by the resurrection.
Paul, the great persecutor of Christianity, was converted by the resurrection (Acts 9:3-9, 17; 1 Cor. 15:8; 9:1)

So momentous was this single event in the First Century that its effects have been described as a "widening circle of ripples" from a "boulder crashing into the pool of history." In one of the oddest turns in history, a message centering on a dead "criminal" (1 Corinthians 1:23) came to be proclaimed as "good news." Equally amazing was the extent of the Empire-wide transformation following its proclamation. The impetus for this message was the conviction that the same Jesus who was crucified was now alive again. These facts are admitted even by knowledgeable skeptics.
The Resurrection story of course has had its critics, even from the very beginning. From the account of the first guards in Matthew 28:11f, all the way to the present, there have been efforts to explain away his resurrection. Each new attempt, however, is more perverse than those which came before, while still failing to account for the range of indisputable facts.

On one point virtually all scholars of every description agree, the first disciples were themselves utterly convinced they had seen the risen Christ.

The Christian gospel message about the death and resurrection of Christ breathes through virtually every New Testament document. So the real question is, how do we account for their obvious conviction? Were they just hallucinating?

While perhaps at first sounding plausible, many factors contradict such a notion. To name a few:


The large number of witnesses (hundreds) (1 Corinthians 15:5-8)...

Covering the spectrum of personality types (e.g., John 20 -- Peter, Thomas, the two Marys, etc.), contradict the theory of hallucinations which, by definition, are not shared experiences.

There is no such thing as a vision appearing to a crowd. It's generally received only by one person at a time, and that person must be expecting the vision and be in a highly emotional state. As the Bible shows, none of Jesus' followers expected him to rise from the dead. Luke said that when Jesus appeared to the disciples, "They were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit" (Luke 24:37).

Mistaken identity can not be the explanation, either. Certainly the disciples would recognize the person they had been with every day for more than three years.

Originally posted by HairyPooper
Jews were the poorest of candidates for inventing a mythical Christ. No other culture has so opposed mythically confusing deity with humanity, as did the Jewish.

Are you joking? The Jewish scriptures fortold the coming of a messiah.

There is no question that Jesus Christ's tomb was mysteriously empty. As Paul Althaus has said, the resurrection message "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact..." Dr. Craig observed that, "Conflicting traditions nowhere appear, even in Jewish polemic."
At least one skeptic (Dr. John Dominic Crossan) has wrongly asserted that Roman law automatically forbade Jesus' burial, and that he must therefore have been thrown anonymously into a common pit. This is not sustainable. Raymond Brown has shown that Roman burial policy varied with circumstances and did allow the possibility of personal burial of some of the crucified. This scenario would also contradict the consistent Jewish protests that the body had been removed. Furthermore, the Gospels could not have successfully invented as owner of the tomb one so specific as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43). Had the Gospels been false on this matter they would not have been able to withstand the swift correction and ridicule from the Jews.

How have doubters of Christ's resurrection responded? Some skeptics have claimed that someone must have stolen Jesus' body from the tomb, and that this led to the stories of miraculous resurrection. Is this possible?

THE JEWS AND THE ROMANS

Neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who guarded the tomb (Matthew 27:62f) would have taken the body. Rather, both had every motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the disciples and nip their movement in the bud. And since the scene in question was right at Jerusalem, it was completely within their power to locate the corpse should it still have existed. Yet to their dismay, no such body was ever produced. If the Jews had the body, they would have wheeled it in at the day of Pentecost when all Jerusalem was in an uproar because of Peter's sermon on the Resurrection of Christ.

CHRIST'S FOLLOWERS



Likewise, is highly unlikely that Jesus' followers could have removed the body with a Roman guard protecting the tomb, plus a large stone door. And it won't work to charge them with inventing the account of the sleeping guards in Matthew. 28:11f. That story would only have served as apologetic propaganda had the guards stayed awake.

Why would the disciples (or anyone else) want to risk their lives to steal Christ's body? The biblical record shows the disciples were scared, discouraged and disheartened. Their only motive could have been to deceive. But everything we read about these men indicates they were good and honest. How could they have gone out the rest of their lives and daily preached that Christ had risen from the dead when they knew all along it was a lie? Would they have sacrificed and suffered so greatly for something that they know was an outright deception?

It would have been foolish to hide the corpse and fake a resurrection. The consequences of their loyalty to Jesus included beatings, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures, liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts.

The explosive growth of the Church is strong evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Significantly, it wasn't the powerful, but commoners, burdened with every cultural strike against them (1 Corinthians 1:26f), whose Resurrection message peaceably transformed the Roman Empire. Who would ever have predicted such an "impossible" feat? Yet it actually did happen!

That Christianity originated in Judaism is further evidence for his resurrection. Renowned archaeologist William F. Albright observed, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D." Jewish bias against the Jesus of the New Testament was massive. What else would have led Jews to accept a shamefully hung (Galatians 3:13) "criminal", as their promised Messiah when they had longed for a military deliverer? And what else would have moved Jews to break their monotheistic convictions to worship Jesus as God the Son (John 1:18), or change their worship day from Saturday to Sunday (Acts 20:7)? A mere invented myth would have been powerless to overthrow such hopes and traditions.


"Jesus was so unlike what all Jews expected the Son of David to be that His own disciples found it almost impossible to connect the idea of the Messiah with Him."
-Millar Burrows

It is, as the New Testament states, Jesus' resurrection that singly overcame that "impossibility" (Acts 2:24).

CONVERSION OF SAUL

In addition, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus points to a momentous miracle. Beginning as a violent enemy of the Church (Acts 8:3; 9:1, Galatians 1:13), he was utterly turned around into becoming Jesus' servant. Choosing suffering for Christ's sake (2 Corinthians 11:23f), Paul gave up all he had, endured persecution, and preached the Gospel in city after city all the way to Rome, where he died a martyr's death. He is credited with having had greater influence over the course of the Roman Empire than any other figure of the First Century apart from Christ. Nothing short of Christ's resurrection has remotely explained his major transformation.

THE OTHER APOSTLES

The other Apostles too, overcame fear to brave suffering, imprisonment, and even death, as they proclaimed the good news of the risen Christ across their world. Is it thinkable that these people would die so willingly for a mere myth? "Each of the disciples, except John, died a martyr's death... because they tenaciously clung to their beliefs and statements," observes researcher Josh McDowell.

In contrast to others who have died for an unverifiable hope beyond the grave (e.g., mystics seeking reincarnation or Moslem militants expecting reward from Allah), Jesus' disciples lived and died for the historically verifiable claim that the grave was empty and that he was seen alive again.

Legal scholar Dr. Simon Greenleaf, founder of the Harvard Law School, notes:


"Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, contempt, opposition... and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate, and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only their work with increased vigor and resolution... The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage... If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. From these there is no escape but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed...and well knew to be true.

Dr. Greenleaf is considered by many to have been one of the greatest legal minds we have had in the U.S. He was formerly an outspoken skeptic of Christianity and who set out to disprove the deity of Christ. In the end he concluded that the Resurrection was true "beyond any reasonable doubt." Greenleaf became a Christian after studying the evidence for himself. Many top legal minds agree with Greenleaf that if the case for Christ's death and resurrection were taken to a court of law, it would undoubtedly win. The claims are very well established and verified by independent and converging proofs.

The doctrine of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is critical to the Christian faith. But is the evidence conclusive? Numerous alternative scenarios have been postulated over the years. Here are four -- with a correspondent response:

Postulate # 1
Jesus' body was moved to an undisclosed location.

Roman or Jewish authorities moved the body of Jesus to a location completely unknown and undiscovered by Christ's disciples. Perhaps the body was even thrown into a mass burial pit and devoured by dogs.

Answer
For starters, this and many other such scenarios completely contradict the testimony of the Gospel writers with regard to Jesus' resurrection and subsequent appearances. This is no small matter. The Biblical record carries considerable, weighty, self-supporting evidence, i.e. prophetic fulfillment, manuscript reliability, archaeological discovery, etc.

But even extra-Biblically this scenario fails, due largely to lack of a sound rationale. Both the Jewish leadership and the Roman government had every interest in laying to rest, not further perpetrating the controversy surrounding Jesus. By simply producing the body of Christ, all reports of His resurrection could have been quickly quashed. To deliberately and finally destroy such evidence would have forever eliminated that possibility, and served only the purposes of Jesus' followers and cause.

Know also that conjecture about crucifixion victims being disposed of in a common pit for the executed near Jerusalem suffered a deadly blow in June of 1968 with the discovery of the remains of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgal, a man who had been crucified, yet was then plainly buried in a family tomb.

Finally, in the event that such a thing did transpire, why wouldn't the authorities have owned up to it rather than accusing Jesus' disciples of stealing His body (Matthew 28:11-15)? Their acknowledgement of such an act would have served their purposes far more effectively than concocting a complex conspiracy theory that could not then be refuted.

Postulate # 2
Jesus' followers visited the wrong tomb.

Perhaps Mary Magdalene and the other women who were intending to anoint the body of Jesus following the Sabbath got mixed up in the predawn darkness (John 20:1), and arrived at the wrong site. After all, the entire area was full of rock tombs and they were emotionally distraught.

Answer
The Gospel account (John 20:15) indicates that it was light enough for the women to see the "gardener." i.e. Jesus. Furthermore, it was not just the women who visited the tomb where Jesus had been buried --- Peter and John also came to the same place (John 30:3-7) when it was light enough for them to notice even details like grave clothes and a head cloth inside the darkened recesses of the tomb. Neither does this postulate explain the angelic presence.

Postulate # 3
Tomb never even checked

Perhaps in their desire to continue to believe in Jesus, the disciples never even tried to examine the tomb. Could this have been a case of their minds being made up and their not wanting to face the facts?

Answer
Even if Jesus' disciples hadn't checked the tomb, Rome would have been fully aware of what had transpired there. Elite Roman Guards units, operating under penalty of death, must have scoured the area before reporting Jesus' body as missing.

So whether the disciples checked the tomb or not is irrelevant. If Rome could have produced Jesus' body, it certainly would have done so.

For God's sake, stop trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible! I know the resurection story is true because the Bible says so! How do I know that the Bible is accurate? It's very unlikely that Jesus' followers could have faked blahblahblah. How do I know they did that? The Bible says so!

Postulate # 4
Jesus' body was taken into custody by a third party.

The variations on this theme range from the bizarre to the ridiculous. One 5th century polemic invented by Toledot Yeshu suggests that a gardener named Juda robbed Jesus' body, tried to blackmail the disciples, and then dragged the corpse through the streets of Jerusalem. Another theory speculates that Joseph of Arimathea confiscated the body.

Answer
How could any of this have occurred given Rome's tight control of the case? And how likely is it that any such clandestine operation would have remained undisclosed for long? Yet, if a hoax had been revealed, how does one then explain the phenomenal growth of the Christian Church?

Oh man, Jesus just came down from the clouds and spoke to me. He said that HairyPooper is incapable of formulating his own arguments, that he doesn't even read other people's posts, and that trying to talk to someone like him is a waste of time. So I'm out of here.

Funny I had just tried to PM HP to warn him he might get banned.

Originally posted by HairyPooper
Im not done yet.

Oh yes you are. You're hereby ban for ignoring warnings and also for post spamming. You were told to use the "check message length" tool. You chose to ignore it. And thus we're done with you.

I think he has a personality disorder.....Originial-o-phobia-Biblelistic

Whatever it is he just doesn't understand warnings very well. If you guys want to keep this topic going you're very welcome to it. However if there is nothing further to discuss we'll close it.

I'm fine with the topic, I would just like to get a word in sideways.

Wow, that was the worst case of decatuple posting I've ever seen!

He's ignorant....doesn't read anyone else's posts....

lol he was too busy copy and pasting the Bible to notice what was going on around him, haha

whoa, what the heck was that???

Originally posted by fini
whoa, what the heck was that???
A newbie.

DUH!!!

Originally posted by fini
DUH!!!
I'm sorry cry

Jesus existed there are countless accounts for his life. I don't believe he resurrected because i dont beleive in the bible.

The bible was written by Apostles, bias. Just people that believed in something and wrote it down. The way i look at it, its just something that caught on and influenced alot of people. So they taught there children and there children and people are born with this faith with no choice. Religion is forced on them.

The bible referred to slavery in one of the original amendments, and as women being inferior. Just the point of view of a cult of men that wrote it down. Proof right there since slavery was common and woman was always considered inferior in most parts of the world untill the last century. So the men continued the bias in the bible.

Science overrules the bible.
The catholic church even acknowledges the bible is not to be used for historical reference. And it's pretty obvious how much bullshit the old testament is.
And the devil possessed a snake so god took away snake's legs.
To punish eve god gave women birth pain.(gave adam nothing, woman inferior)
come on now tell me that doesnt sound like greek mythology.

Then theres the argument the old testament is just storys made to live your life by. Bullshit i dont beleive in false hope.

Dont even get me started on the catholic church.

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
Jesus existed there are countless accounts for his life. I don't believe he resurrected because i dont beleive in the bible.

The bible was written by Apostles, bias. Just people that believed in something and wrote it down. The way i look at it, its just something that caught on and influenced alot of people. So they taught there children and there children and people are born with this faith with no choice. Religion is forced on them.

The bible referred to slavery in one of the original amendments, and as women being inferior. Just the point of view of a cult of men that wrote it down. Proof right there since slavery was common and woman was always considered inferior in most parts of the world untill the last century. So the men continued the bias in the bible.

Science overrules the bible.
The catholic church even acknowledges the bible is not to be used for historical reference. And it's pretty obvious how much bullshit the old testament is.
And the devil possessed a snake so god took away snake's legs.
To punish eve god gave women birth pain.(gave adam nothing, woman inferior)
come on now tell me that doesnt sound like greek mythology.

Then theres the argument the old testament is just storys made to live your life by. Bullshit i dont beleive in false hope.

Dont even get me started on the catholic church.

I think you are basically right, however, the bible is a mix. There is some truth and wisdom within the writing. The problem, as I see it, is that people take it way too literal and they are too serious about their own beliefs.

Name three outside of Christian scriptures/books based on scriptues? I'm willing to learn, but I don't think there are any (maybe a couple of one sentance references here and there?), although I also suppose that he existed.

Originally posted by Gregory
Name three outside of Christian scriptures/books based on scriptues? I'm willing to learn, but I don't think there are any (maybe a couple of one sentance references here and there?), although I also suppose that he existed.

There are loads of books based on scripture. Different author's tellings of the story of Moses, of Noah, of Job, I just don't have any of the author's names right now. My godmother's husband is really into the retelling of those stories. Funny thing is he's not religious in the least.

Ive seen it all over the history channel, i know the romans accounted for jesus in there own documents.

Its official there was a jesus of nazereth who walked the earth, and impacted the way we breathe and think. But its just because he drew a crowd and it caught on. Or i cant even say that i dont know. If there was a jesus then is what the apostles say true? but they all contradict each other. So it has to be bullshit. I seem to be becoming skeptical with myself.

here is another interesting theory. In a show called Beyond the Da vinci code on the history channel. There were theory's that the bible had been altered by the early church elders. So it'd be somewhere around 100 a.d. im guessing.

This is the conclusion i drew b/c the show never told u why it may of been changed, except for some of it may of been different then the church elders beleifs.
I think its completley possible because back in the day i know the catholic church was horrible. It tortured people and did this and that it was practically hell itself from what ive heard. So it wouldnt be that unrealistic if the elders changed it because they didnt think part of it was fitting.
However there is no proof for this what so ever, just a theory. The only proof is more theory's.

Here was something else that caught my attention. Jesus was married. In the bible it shows references to Jesus having a relationship with Mary Magdalene. The bible never says she's a prostitute it's just something thats been assumed and adapted. They took the references from the way the apostles talked to them. In lists of woman in many of them Mary Magdalene was at the top.
Then there's the reason why the hell would the church elders cut that out, possibly because woman were considered inferior.

This draws from the davinci code in the picture of the last supper, where they say that might not be john it may be mary magdalene.

It may be just to over-read into. Then again i dont give a **** because i dont beleive in the bible anyways.

Define fun. People have different definitions of the word...

Fun is doing what you enjoy.

Hp was spammin up the Harry Potter forum too. he made 3 threads saying how harry potter was evil

Really???????...Oh Wow..