Proof of the existence of Christ

[createdtoworship]

ever wonder if belief in Easter and the resurrection of Christ is rational? Check out this debate between a leading apologist &a popular atheist on "is the resurrection rational?"start about 5 minutes in if you want to miss the intro:

Mike Winger vs Matt Dillahunty Debate: Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable?

(posting that easter is pagan is a side issue and is considered off topic for this particular thread, I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but that is not what this thread is for, this thread is for the resurrection evidence)

Here is the list of historical facts presented by debater 1:
View attachment 274522

(now I am just now watching this so I don't know if I agree or disagree that these are solid facts, but I will let you know.

 

[createdtoworship]

ever wonder if belief in Easter and the resurrection of Christ is rational? Check out this debate between a leading apologist &a popular atheist on "is the resurrection rational?"start about 5 minutes in if you want to miss the intro:

Mike Winger vs Matt Dillahunty Debate: Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable?

(posting that easter is pagan is a side issue and is considered off topic for this particular thread, I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but that is not what this thread is for, this thread is for the resurrection evidence)

Here is the list of historical facts presented by debater 1:
View attachment 274522

(now I am just now watching this so I don't know if I agree or disagree that these are solid facts, but I will let you know.

 

[SkyWriting]

(now I am just now watching this so I don't know if I agree or disagree that these are solid facts, but I will let you know.)

On his own terms of "evidence" his argument fails. The only evidence for the resurection is the content of scripture and Matt claims that the original writings were altered, when all the solid evidence says they were not.

So based on the evidence, the scriptures are accurate. It's an obvious point Matt must avoid to succeed. Plus he has to discredit his mom to retaliate for being named Matt. So that's sad.

 

[Tolworth John]

Something else to consider is the impossibility of Christianity.
Things like a crucified God!
For more read Telefonica.org/LP/nowayjose.html

 

[Jok]

On his own terms of "evidence" his argument fails. The only evidence for the resurection is the content of scripture and he claims that the original writings were altered, when all the solid evidence says they were not.

If you'd like to build a personal case for God, then read here:
Knowing God Through Answered Prayer - Steps 1,2,&3

I have a hard time thinking that people are being serious with apparent death theory, especially 2000 years ago with no modern day ER to rush Jesus to. I’m convinced that people who use that objection are trying to be funny. I mean what kind of resurrection would that be? Jesus would be such a weak & bloody mess that they’d have to carry him around on a stretcher, and tell everyone to shut up and gather close so they could hear Jesus quietly & painfully moan that He is risen. It would not at all portray any type of triumphant conquering (of death). And do these people forget that everyone turned on Him and spit on Him for letting Himself get arrested? The reaction to a Jesus within an inch of his life would be more like someone put that false prophet out of his misery!

And it’s a double dose of absurdity. First they’re claiming that Rome botched a crucifixion and that Jesus must have held his breath long enough to fake his asphyxiation death. But second, how can someone then believe that you won’t shortly die (very shortly) if somehow you survived it? I mean do they not think about what CRUCIFIXION was lol?

 

[SkyWriting]

I have a hard time thinking that people are being serious with apparent death theory, especially 2000 years ago with no modern day ER to rush Jesus to. I’m convinced that people who use that objection are trying to be funny. I mean what kind of resurrection would that be? Jesus would be such a weak & bloody mess that they’d have to carry him around on a stretcher, and tell everyone to shut up and gather close so they could hear Jesus quietly & painfully moan that He is risen. It would not at all portray any type of triumphant conquering (of death). And do these people forget that everyone turned on Him and spit on Him for letting Himself get arrested? The reaction to a Jesus within an inch of his life would be more like someone put that false prophet out of his misery!

And it’s a double dose of absurdity. First they’re claiming that Rome botched a crucifixion and that Jesus must have held his breath long enough to fake his asphyxiation death. But second, how can someone then believe that you won’t shortly die (very shortly) if somehow you survived it? I mean do they not think about what CRUCIFIXION was lol?

I agree fully. I'm just saying that there are "Facts" that people are mistakenly declared dead.

Another "Fact" is that the scriptures have been copied accurately. This does not prove that the original writings were accurate. But you can't attribute the content to inaccurate transmission, which Matt does.

The fact that Matt avoids these only two facts, shows his bias against facts.

 

[Ken-1122]

View attachment 274524

I don’t have time to look at such a long video, but one thing I did notice is he mentions these 12 “facts” as undisputed by historians, atheists, people of other religions etc. everybody. The first fact he mentions is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. This is not an undisputed fact; as a matter of fact if it could be proven Jesus actually died, this would dispel the entire religion of Islam because according to Islam Jesus never died, but was taken directly to Heaven by Allah. So the fact that there are billions of Muslim believers, and even historians, this is evidence that what this guy calls undisputed facts are not.

 

[Jok]

I agree fully. I'm just saying that there are "Facts" that people are mistakenly declared dead.

Another "Fact" is that the scriptures have been copied accurately.

The fact that Matt avoids these only two facts, shows his bias against facts.

Oh don’t mind me I was just going on a rant about apparent death theory, it wasn’t towards you.

Another thing that kills me is that those who think is was all fake have Jesus chalked up as a wimpy peace loving turn the other cheek hippy who was a great moral teacher. However the apparent death believers all the sudden have Jesus tougher than John Rambo where he shakes off a Roman crucifixion, and then walks around and eats fish with his old buddies lol

 

[createdtoworship]

On his own terms of "evidence" his argument fails. The only evidence for the resurection is the content of scripture and Matt claims that the original writings were altered, when all the solid evidence says they were not.

So based on the evidence, the scriptures are accurate. It's an obvious point Matt must avoid to succeed. Plus he has to discredit his mom to retaliate for being named Matt. So that's sad.

I wish I listened to all of it, I am actually going to convert it to audio and listen in the car. My ADD doesn't allow me to listen to stuff over a half hour. I have six video's open on my tab. They are all partially watched, again thats my ADD. Not only that, but I have hundreds of images on my desktop, drives my wife crazy. I like everything being clickable on my desktop. So I put documents, pictures audio. But I did listen to matt debate a popular youtuber on prophecies in the Bible. It was awesome, he has a great analytical mind, that is why I subscribed. I unfortunately don't prescribe to most apologetics. I use things that work for me in debate. Things that may work on youtube, don't work here, because people have unlimited time to refute you. So they can come back months later and do it . So if it don't work, it don't work. My personal evidence for the resurrection (not having finished the video), is the garden tomb in partnership with the shroud of turin. There was a long awesome video on the shroud but it got removed. But the shroud of turin when you study documentaries, is a negative. There is no physical way that image should be on that cloth, it's not painted, it's not stained. I mean there is blood stains and oils from the body and burial but not in the image, one of the theories is that the image was made using high radiation. That would be consistent with the resurrection. In fact a 3D image of the shroud of turin, suggests what Jesus looked like.

 

[createdtoworship]

On his own terms of "evidence" his argument fails. The only evidence for the resurection is the content of scripture and Matt claims that the original writings were altered, when all the solid evidence says they were not.

So based on the evidence, the scriptures are accurate. It's an obvious point Matt must avoid to succeed. Plus he has to discredit his mom to retaliate for being named Matt. So that's sad.

if he in fact says that the scriptures are altered then that would be the case. Are you sure he is not just saying small errors like 'slip of the pen' (scribal errors)?

 

[Skreeper]

ever wonder if belief in Easter and the resurrection of Christ is rational? Check out this debate between a leading apologist &a popular atheist on "is the resurrection rational?"start about 5 minutes in if you want to miss the intro:

Mike Winger vs Matt Dillahunty Debate: Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable?

(posting that easter is pagan is a side issue and is considered off topic for this particular thread, I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but that is not what this thread is for, this thread is for the resurrection evidence)

Here is the list of historical facts presented by debater 1:
View attachment 274522

(now I am just now watching this so I don't know if I agree or disagree that these are solid facts, but I will let you know.

Poor choice for the video on your part. That Mike Winger guy was absolutely out of his element here and that's a big mistake when going against someone like Matt.

If these arguments is the best Christianity has to offer for the resurrection then it is doomed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Poor choice for the video on your part. That Mike Winger guy was absolutely out of his element here and that's a big mistake when going against someone like Matt.

If these arguments is the best Christianity has to offer for the resurrection then it is doomed.

I haven't watched it myself. The bible itself it treated as history all through the middle east. It has people groups, and a 6,000 year history of the middle east really, and if you go back to noah and his generations you can literally trace noah's decendants all through europe, and elsewhere, I have two sources for that information. But lets say that stuff is all made up, and fake, a lie. Still you have stuff like the shroud of turin that has an image on it, which is unusual for a shroud. The image is not from body oils like one would think, but is actually a negative copy. Thats right, a negative, not a positive. So that as well is very unusual. One theory is that it was broadcast onto the shroud via radioactivity. Which in the case of a resurrection is very possible. That theory is being pushed by secular scientists as well.

do your research on it. Watch the longer length video's on it, they seem to present more of both sides. You want a balanced view.

 

[Ken-1122]

.

 

[Ken-1122]

Still you have stuff like the shroud of turin that has an image on it, which is unusual for a shroud. The image is not from body oils like one would think, but is actually a negative copy. Thats right, a negative, not a positive. So that as well is very unusual. One theory is that it was broadcast onto the shroud via radioactivity. Which in the case of a resurrection is very possible. That theory is being pushed by secular scientists as well.

do your research on it. Watch the longer length video's on it, they seem to present more of both sides. You want a balanced view.

If the Shroud of Turin is such a strong argument for the resurrection of your Christ, why is it that the Catholic Church which has possession of the shroud, (and is open to the Theory of Evolution BTW) still refuses to authenticate it?
Shroud of Turin - LectioTube

 

[Strathos]

Is this really on-topic for this forum?

 

[Ken-1122]

Is this really on-topic for this forum?

Yes.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is this really on-topic for this forum?

Nope, that would be Apologetics.

 

[Mitty]

Is this really on-topic for this forum?

But more important is the fate of the rotting corpses after they crawled out of their graves and wandered around down-town Jerusalem. Did they just crawl back into their graves or did they go somewhere else (Matt 27:52-53)?

 

[Hank77]

If the Shroud of Turin is such a strong argument for the resurrection of your Christ, why is it that the Catholic Church which has possession of the shroud, (and is open to the Theory of Evolution BTW) still refuses to authenticate it?
Shroud of Turin - LectioTube

There have been numerous studies of the Shroud. One of the most scientifically though ones was in Italy in 1978 with a team from the US. You can read about it on Wiki and probably somewhere else to but I haven't looked further.
Anyway in 1980, I went to a conference about the Shroud where the speaker was one of the scientists from the STURP team. The projected visuals of the Shroud were used to point out the location of each point of interest as he explained the testing they had done and what they had found so far.
If I remember correctly they thought that the image was caused by a powerful blast of energy from the inside through the Shroud, but don't quote me on that.
I'm copying this quote from their final report.

"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."

The STURP Team Members

• Joseph S. Accetta , Lockheed Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Allan Adler , Western Connecticut State University .
• Steven Baumgart , U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Ernest H. Brooks II , Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Robert Bucklin , Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Donald Devan , Oceanographic Services Inc. (à Turin en 1978).
• Robert Dinegar , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Rudolph J. Dichtl , University of Colorado (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Thomas F. D'Muhala , Nuclear Technology Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Jim Drusik , Los Angeles County Museum .
• Mark Evans , Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Rev. Dr. Joseph Gambescia, M.D. , St. Agnes Medical Center .
• John D. German , U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Roger and Marty Gilbert , Oriel Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Thomas Haverty , Rocky Mountain Thermograph (Turin researcher in 1978).
• John Heller , New England Institute .
• John P. Jackson , U.S. Air Force Academy (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Donald, and Joan Janney , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Eric J. Jumper , U.S. Air Force Academy (Turin researcher in 1978).
• J. Ronald London , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Jean Lorre , Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Donald J. Lynn , Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Vernon D. Miller , Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Roger A. Morris , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Robert W. Mottern , Sandia Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Samuel Pellicori , Santa Barbara Research Center (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Ray Rogers , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Larry Schwalbe , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories .
• Barrie M. Schwortz , Barrie Schwortz Studios (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Diane Soran , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories .
• Kenneth E. Stevenson , IBM (Turin researcher in 1978).

 

[Mitty]

There have been numerous studies of the Shroud. One of the most scientifically though ones was in the US in 1978. You can read about it on Wiki and probably somewhere else to but I haven't looked further.
Anyway in 1980, I went to a conference about the Shroud where the speaker was one of the scientists from the STURP team. The projected visuals of the Shroud were used to point out the location of each point of interest as he explained the testing they had done and what they had found so far.
If I remember correctly they thought that the image was caused by a powerful blast of energy from the inside through the Shroud, but don't quote me on that.
I'm copying this quote from their final report.

"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."

The STURP Team Members

• Joseph S. Accetta , Lockheed Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Allan Adler , Western Connecticut State University .
• Steven Baumgart , U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Ernest H. Brooks II , Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Robert Bucklin , Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Donald Devan , Oceanographic Services Inc. (à Turin en 1978).
• Robert Dinegar , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Rudolph J. Dichtl , University of Colorado (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Thomas F. D'Muhala , Nuclear Technology Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Jim Drusik , Los Angeles County Museum .
• Mark Evans , Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Rev. Dr. Joseph Gambescia, M.D. , St. Agnes Medical Center .
• John D. German , U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Roger and Marty Gilbert , Oriel Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Thomas Haverty , Rocky Mountain Thermograph (Turin researcher in 1978).
• John Heller , New England Institute .
• John P. Jackson , U.S. Air Force Academy (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Donald, and Joan Janney , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Eric J. Jumper , U.S. Air Force Academy (Turin researcher in 1978).
• J. Ronald London , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Jean Lorre , Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Donald J. Lynn , Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Vernon D. Miller , Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Roger A. Morris , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Robert W. Mottern , Sandia Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Samuel Pellicori , Santa Barbara Research Center (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Ray Rogers , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Larry Schwalbe , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories .
• Barrie M. Schwortz , Barrie Schwortz Studios (Turin researcher in 1978).
• Diane Soran , Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories .
• Kenneth E. Stevenson , IBM (Turin researcher in 1978).

So why is the shroud dated to the middle ages? Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia