Help with disproving the resurrection of Jesus

Help with disproving the event.Logical and backup facts would be helpful, im conducting this conversation with several people on a intelligent level, not your wrong, because God is just not all good.

some of the ex. evidence for
1. The empty tomb
2. Jesus appears to over 500 witnesses(and please give me something more than mass acid trips)
3. Moving of the large stone
4. Roman guards dissapear?
5. Destruction of the temple?

Someone stated that there are no records of a Jesus being crucified?
No one here actually denies that Jesus existed right?
Was he a prophet? what fate did he suffer in the Quran?
Please give sources and historical facts to back up. Please dont try to drown things with hard to read language. You can go as far back as you want nad as forward into our present time. Im asking because some of the worlds smartest minds actually write on this board and I would be grateful if you could help me. Also what would be some of arguments I would face(again please serious answers)

Thank you and God be with you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Plenty do because...

None exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

a book is not a fact, it could be a story purely of fiction with only metaphores inside with no factual meaning atall.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you base everything you know about jesus from text alone, that cannot be used as evidence, or i could just use any ancient scripts to say anything, from all over the globe from countless civilisations in the past. if all ancient scriptures were true they would contratict each other alot and not be able to coinside with each other, your text isnt right just because you were raised to think so, or was converted to think so.

 

((((((((((((( ^ ))))))))))))

 

1. The empty tomb

The body was removed.

2. Jesus appears to over 500 witnesses(and please give me something more than mass acid trips)

Argument from silence. This account was of a supernatural phenomena. Luke 24:31: "And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."

3. Moving of the large stone

The stone was moved by people, perhaps by those who removed his body.

4. Roman guards dissapear?

They were paid off, perhaps by those who removed his body.

5. Destruction of the temple?

It was detroyed by human hands.

 

Just what is the point of this? You cant prove anything about something that is already an illusion, which the past purely is. No one actually believes they can determine what actually happened in any past, or history, do they? You cant. The best you can do is to distill some sort of personal meaning or message from it.

 

What is the lat/long of this tomb?

What were the names and addresses of the witnesses and where is the afadavit kept?

Where is the large stone now?

What was the guards' names? Where are their families?

What is the lat/long of the temple?

Were are the records?

Lets see the evidence first.

What's one source of fiction have to do with another?

There don't appear to *be* any historical facts.

Trying to keep it as simple as I can.

Seriously? Where is the evidence?

And Ra with you.

 

You can't disprove it or prove it, it's all based on hearsay (maybe even heresy). The only thing we can be reasonably certain about historically is that there was someone named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.

The Gnostic Christians believe that the resurrection is metaphorical or the result of visions, largely based on the experience of Mary Magdalene.

 

*************
M*W: Where are the documented[/I] Roman historical records of Jesus' crucifixion to be found -- NT excluded?

 

the 'evidence' you will see is based exclusively on the gospel accounts, and a few christians referencing the 'fact' that they found a crucifixion record and some graffiti by Roman guards saying something to the end of 'Alexandrus worships his god' with a kneeling man before a crucified man. i can't provide links, unfortunately, but i find it suspect. no doubt both can be found somewhere on 'worldnetdaily.com', the christian-slanted news site.

they state that the way the gospels were written mean that it must be truth. my responses are making the same assumptions, and are hence refutations based on the text.

examples include: 1. 'women are said to be the first to have seen jesus.' this is said to be persuasive because women in ancient rome, especially according to christian politics, were not allowed to speak in court or similar. however, women visiting the tomb is also a more likely occurance, as women, traditionally, are the mourners.

2. 'it names names which are verifiable witnesses, ie Pilate, the high priests.' i'm willing to bet that your average person reading these manuscripts never went to ask Pilate about it. in fact, i believe that Pilate was killed (according to Latin tradition) shortly after the crucifixion allegedly took place.

3. 'you can't steal from professional roman soldiers!!!1!!11!1eleven' professional soldiers do not report to priests, and as far as i understand it, would not take bribes to lie about such occurances. the guards were probably local militia, bored, and likely did not especially care one way or the other.

4. 'breaking into the tomb meant breaking the Seal of Rome, which was punished harshly and severely.' if you hear this argument, you are hearing someone make up bollocks about Rome's government, especially in Judea. this has no basis in reality.

5. 'the guards would not take a bribe, because failing in their post meant death.' even a traitorous or incredibly failure-prone legion was only decimated (viz, one in ten were killed). a few guards who couldn't guard a corpse are likely not to be executed. also, if they wouldn't take a bribe, why do they take a bribe from the priests?

6. 'the gospel accounts are consistant.' this is patently false. there are several inconsistencies as to when X or Y happened. it is thought by biblical scholars that two of the first three are referencing one of the others, and a mystery document they call Q. john has no real similarities with the others; the other similarities are explained by the fact that they are, in fact, all based on the same sources.

my favourite part of these, is that their arguments are all based on the assumption that you already believe the accounts to be true, except for that of the resurrection.

 

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

 

thanks everyone. Im a studying to be priest whos lost his religion and now Im surrounded by "righteous" people who hate me, so I thank you for your help.

 

Just what the world needs: another religious cleric.

 

whatever

 

Indeed.

 

*************
M*W: Well, considering the date of it's possible writing, this could have been another forgery. The Romans were known for their record-keeping. Where is it in the official Roman records?

 

I haven't listed those, since there is some controversy about them, they might have been inserted at a later time.

 

If Gandalf can come back from the dead, so can Jesus! I mean, didn't the fellowship see him?! And all those people at Gondor?!

 

Resurrection is the Christian name for Nirvana...