• There is plenty of historical evidence to support this!

    The six basic, historical facts concerning the resurrection are agreed on by almost every scholar of the resurrection. These facts support no other event then the Resurrection. The Bible is also a valid source for these events. In a test of a historical document's validity, the New Testament is more accurate and reliable then some writings by Aristotle, Plato, and Julius Caesar! It's also very clear that Jesus exists as a historical figure. When you combine all these pieces of information, then the result is pretty clear!

  • Jesus rose from the dead.

    One great question ask is: if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then where's the body?
    Some people theorize that the body was stolen by the disciples, yet how could a group of untrained men fight off the squadron of trained Roman guards, who were posted at the tomb.
    If Jesus didn't rise from the dead and his body was still in the tomb, then the pharisees could have easily produced the body of Jesus to prove the disciples wrong.

    Another thing to think about is the fact that every one of the disciples died for their faith except for John, who was exiled. If the disciples had simply made up Jesus' resurrection, at least one of them would have admitted that they lied. No one dies for a lie. The disciples deaths are a testament to the validity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

  • Yes. If He did not resurrect, His death would had meant nothing.

    Jesus' death has been proven, as well as His resurrection. After Jesus rose from the dead he appeared to 500 people. How does it possibly make sense that 500 people would all make up the same story? And it explains why thousands of people became disciples of Jesus.. After witnessing Jesus raise from the dead how could one not believe? It's sad how people over the years distort history. Luckily we have the bible, and the bible has remained the same. Nothing has ever been added to it, nothing has ever been taken away.

  • The resurrection makes sense

    History verifies Jesus existed. History also verifies that Jesus was crucified. Were the apostles correct in the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead? Either they told the truth or made up some fable to have some influence at the time. But Paul was not among the original apostles, and yet claimed the same resurrection of Jesus. Either he joined the conspiracy and was martyred for it--which doesn't make sense--or found out the truth of Jesus' resurrection. I believe the later.

  • There Is Absolutely No Evidence On Earth For It. All Evidence Cited By Believers Is Subjective And Hearsay.

    There were absolutely no genuine contemporary witness accounts ever written.
    The Gospels were written after Jesus and likely all Disciples had died, since they were written 40 to 70 years after the death of Jesus and the life expectancy of men at that era was 45 years.
    So it is unlikely any disciples contributed directly to the Gospels, and even if they did, their memories would be inaccurate. Second hand accounts, like the Gospels are Hearsay. Saul also only knew of Jesus from Hearsay, so his writings were no more accurate. His account of women at the empty tomb is inaccurate and possibly wrong. Because he only heard it from others.

  • It is not possible

    Human beings do not come back to life after 3 days. However if Jesus is god, than how could he have died in the first place. Now if god sent his son—who is actually himself, he still can,t die because its god. So if Jesus was born from a human then he would be a demi god and not a true god. Jesus would then be unworthy of bended knees.

  • No there isn't.

    That's in response to the people who say there is evidence this occurred. Beyond that, what credible story has ever surfaced of someone resurrecting? None? Well, that seems significant. An extreme claim with no evidence and no history of ever occurring before (minus the obviously unproven accounts in other religions which make up stories like crazy)...

  • No it didn't

    Well the majority of people watched the crucifixion from a distance. And on average it takes around 3 days to die from it. Jesus was on for about half a day, and seems to "die" right after consuming a liquid from a sponge while on it. While the Romans went to brake the legs to speed up death, Jesus appeared dead. So they left his legs alone. He was probably drugged out of his mind from that liquid at this point. Then Jesus was taken down and wrapped in large amounts of myrrh which was known to stop bleeding, and other healing herbs. He was placed into a tomb which was conveniently donated by a rich man. Then all he had to do is recover from the drugs, and get out. Probably by a simple bribe for the guards. Then after, the guards would surely not talk of it ever, because they most likely would be killed for doing so.
    Then there's the matter of there only being one recorded witness of this so called resurrection. Only one of the disciples. He says others have seen it, but they conveniently never recorded their experience. In the bible other people write about the resurrection but they were not there. They heard from gossip. Many years after. So how could someone believe a religion that takes the word of 1 person? If that 1 person was wrong, the whole religion is wrong. Its very shady. If anyone knows of any other recorded witnesses then please share.

  • Consider the flat-earth thinking of the time

    They did not know the word "coma". They did not know that gravity pulls fluid away from the brain and that, it you lie the body down, fluid goes back to the brain. They were EASILY amazed. Consider, if you will, the amount of injuries that a body can sustain

  • The gospels are not consistent.

    There is a lot of difference between the gospel accounts. First, let's look at the discovery of the empty tomb. In Matthew, Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus, go to the tomb and see one angel. In Mark, the two Marys are joined by Salome and see a young man in the tomb. In Luke, several women go to the tomb and see two men inside. In John, Mary Magdalene goes alone and sees two angels. So, which is it?

    From there, the gospels completely diverge. Matthew's gospel says Jesus met the two Marys on the road and told them to tell the disciples to meet him on a mountain in Galilee. The disciples go and Jesus gives them the Great Commission.

    In Luke, two disciples are walking on the road to Emmaus (near Jerusalem) and Jesus appears and walks next to them, but they don't recognize him. He breaks bread with them, they suddenly recognize him, then he vanishes. They tell the other disciples what happened, then Jesus appears before them and they think he is a ghost. He eats before them to prove he is real flesh. Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, and ascends to heaven.

    In John, Jesus appears to Mary at the tomb, then to the all of the disciples except Thomas at a house in Jerusalem, then a week later to all of the disciples including Thomas, and finally he appears to Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. This is explicitly said to be the third appearance of Jesus to the disciples after his resurrection.

    If the gospels of John and Matthew were both written by the apostles of whose name they bear, why is it that Matthew doesn't record the appearance to all of the disciples in Jerusalem and why doesn't John record the appearance to all of the disciples in Galilee?

  • No evidence. At all.

    There's no evidence that The Bible is actually God's word. It could of easily, and is more likely to of been, written by humans. Jesus could of easily been made up. And say Jesus did exist, he got nailed to a cross and stabbed with a sword after being tortured. I don't think ANYONE could survive that.

  • Lol WTf no.

    A man, coming back to life. Literally just think about it, use your common sense and think about it. It makes no sense UNTILL you add the part about him being holy or whatever. My question is; why isn't anyone today divine or holy? Show your self god all of us atheists are waiting

  • That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while!

    Besides thinking that the idea of any god is ridiculous because no e of it can be proven, I also think that the idea of dead people coming back from the dead is preposterous. The whole story of Jesus is stupid in my opinion: a virgin was impregnated by a magical man who lives in the clouds somewhere that no one has ever seen gave birth to a son who went around preaching his beliefs, got killed, then somehow magically came back from the dead!?!?! How can anyone believe this?
    I'm guessing that, because a lot was translated incorrectly or something like that, what actually happened was this: a normal woman gave birth to a normal kid who had different beliefs from everyone else. He was executed for his beliefs, slipped into unconsciousness, then awoke again briefly before death.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Sagey says2014-01-15T06:49:47.093
BTW: I am partly on Brainii's side in that I do believe Jesus Existed: Yet, I may be wrong in my belief, since there is absolutely no confirming, independent, impartial, eye-witness accounts for the entire life of Jesus, from birth to death.
I can only say I believe he existed as an ordinary lay preacher, though I cannot possibly say I know Jesus existed, since there is not enough evidence to support a position of Knowing.
Those that believe Jesus Did Not Exist, have equal right and supporting lack-of-evidence to their belief as I.
TheSquirrel says2014-01-17T21:02:01.953
The resurrection of Jesus is clearly impossible if he did not exist and I want to remind everyone here we have NO CONTEMPORARY evidence for his actual existence, so even if we COULD say that he lived, the details of his actual life would be non-existent. Hearsay decades and centuries after the fact does not historical evidence make.
I'm willing to debate on this subject at any time.
dvande28 says2014-01-17T21:38:51.860
There is more evidence that Elvis was resurrected than Jesus.
rakovsky says2015-04-03T06:13:34.237
It is too tough for me to have an opinion, since both sides make good arguments. I think that the Bible's story can be explained as truth and rationalized. The problem is really confirming that it is correct because we don't have many outside accounts of what happened. For example, what was the Romans' and pharisees' version of events? DId they just think that a few days after Easter the Roman soldiers went home and Jesus' disciples picked up the body and hid it, and then the disciples made up an alternate version?

The other problem I have is that something supernatural is harder to believe without very good proof. I mean, if we could ask the disciples if what the Bible says happened and ran them through a lie detector, that would be pretty good. I don't think being persecuted for one's beliefs is a good enough proof because there are times when religious groups (like Mormons) were persecuted for made up facts that they proposed were true.