The Resurrection of Jesus Is Probably Real

[Anonymous]

I gotta agree with OP, the resurrection of Jesus was probably real

I mean just read Luke 24 5-7. Some guy is sitting by the tomb three days after Jesus' death and says to the three women: why are you looking here, he is risen!

So that's pretty definitive evidence right there. I mean, what other possible explanation could there be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I gotta agree with OP, the resurrection of Jesus was probably real

I mean just read Luke 24 5-7. Some guy is sitting by the tomb three days after Jesus' death and says to the three women: why are you looking here, he is risen!

So that's pretty definitive evidence right there. I mean, what other possible explanation could there be?

Hey it was written in a story book 1000's of years ago - what more proof do you need? /S

[Anonymous]

Another reason why the resurrection is not real: Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe a three-hour period of darkness that fell over the land during the crucifixion of Jesus, from noon until 3 p.m.

Matthew 27:45: From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.
Mark 15:33: At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
Luke 23:44–45: And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

For those wanting to claim that historical records are hard to come by, astronomical events, especially the sun suddenly and unexpectedly darkening across the entire planet, would have been recorded by many civilizations around the globe.

Yet, for you Christians, is it not odd that there is not a single documentation of such an event anywhere?

[Anonymous]

Judea at that time was a volatile landscape where messianic hopes ran high and apocalyptic expectations shaped much of Jewish thought.

The name Jesus, derived from the common Jewish name Yeshua, meaning “Yahweh saves,” was a perfect fit. It connected a new sect to Jewish tradition while symbolizing the very essence of salvation they proclaimed. Central to their theology was the idea of atonement, how humanity’s sins could be forgiven. Early Christians reinterpreted the ancient Jewish ritual of the Day of Atonement, where a scapegoat symbolically carried away the sins of the people, into a spiritual reality centered on Jesus’ crucifixion. The Gospel story of Jesus’ trial and the release of Barabbas served as a vivid allegory: Jesus takes the place of the guilty Barabbas, becoming the ultimate scapegoat, bearing the punishment on behalf of humanity. This represented a profound shift from repeated physical sacrifices performed in the Temple to a once-for-all spiritual sacrifice accessible through faith.

Placing Jesus’ life and ministry around the year 30 CE was not accidental. This timing aligned closely with prophetic frameworks found in Hebrew Scriptures. For example, the “seventy weeks” prophecy in Daniel, which many early believers interpreted as predicting the coming of a Messiah in the early first century. Anchoring Jesus’ story during the governorship of Pontius Pilate and situating his death at Passover tied the narrative to recognizable historical events and religious symbolism.

This theological transformation was especially critical after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, which ended the possibility of traditional Jewish sacrificial rituals. Christianity’s new focus on spiritual atonement, not dependent on the Temple or priesthood, made the faith more flexible and universal. It opened the door for Gentiles and others outside Jewish tradition to join.

This is how Christianity went from a small sect within Judaism to a broader religion. It had nothing to do with a literal resurrection, just a “belief” in one.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many self-proclaimed Christians actually believe in the resurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another reason why the resurrection is not real: Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe a three-hour period of darkness that fell over the land during the crucifixion of Jesus, from noon until 3 p.m.

Matthew 27:45: From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.
Mark 15:33: At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
Luke 23:44–45: And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

For those wanting to claim that historical records are hard to come by, astronomical events, especially the sun suddenly and unexpectedly darkening across the entire planet, would have been recorded by many civilizations around the globe.

Yet, for you Christians, is it not odd that there is not a single documentation of such an event anywhere?

people will always disregard facts when they're trying to get into heaven - for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judea at that time was a volatile landscape where messianic hopes ran high and apocalyptic expectations shaped much of Jewish thought.

The name Jesus, derived from the common Jewish name Yeshua, meaning “Yahweh saves,” was a perfect fit. It connected a new sect to Jewish tradition while symbolizing the very essence of salvation they proclaimed. Central to their theology was the idea of atonement, how humanity’s sins could be forgiven. Early Christians reinterpreted the ancient Jewish ritual of the Day of Atonement, where a scapegoat symbolically carried away the sins of the people, into a spiritual reality centered on Jesus’ crucifixion. The Gospel story of Jesus’ trial and the release of Barabbas served as a vivid allegory: Jesus takes the place of the guilty Barabbas, becoming the ultimate scapegoat, bearing the punishment on behalf of humanity. This represented a profound shift from repeated physical sacrifices performed in the Temple to a once-for-all spiritual sacrifice accessible through faith.

Placing Jesus’ life and ministry around the year 30 CE was not accidental. This timing aligned closely with prophetic frameworks found in Hebrew Scriptures. For example, the “seventy weeks” prophecy in Daniel, which many early believers interpreted as predicting the coming of a Messiah in the early first century. Anchoring Jesus’ story during the governorship of Pontius Pilate and situating his death at Passover tied the narrative to recognizable historical events and religious symbolism.

This theological transformation was especially critical after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, which ended the possibility of traditional Jewish sacrificial rituals. Christianity’s new focus on spiritual atonement, not dependent on the Temple or priesthood, made the faith more flexible and universal. It opened the door for Gentiles and others outside Jewish tradition to join.

This is how Christianity went from a small sect within Judaism to a broader religion. It had nothing to do with a literal resurrection, just a “belief” in one.

+1 Nice summary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judea at that time was a volatile landscape where messianic hopes ran high and apocalyptic expectations shaped much of Jewish thought.

The name Jesus, derived from the common Jewish name Yeshua, meaning “Yahweh saves,” was a perfect fit. It connected a new sect to Jewish tradition while symbolizing the very essence of salvation they proclaimed. Central to their theology was the idea of atonement, how humanity’s sins could be forgiven. Early Christians reinterpreted the ancient Jewish ritual of the Day of Atonement, where a scapegoat symbolically carried away the sins of the people, into a spiritual reality centered on Jesus’ crucifixion. The Gospel story of Jesus’ trial and the release of Barabbas served as a vivid allegory: Jesus takes the place of the guilty Barabbas, becoming the ultimate scapegoat, bearing the punishment on behalf of humanity. This represented a profound shift from repeated physical sacrifices performed in the Temple to a once-for-all spiritual sacrifice accessible through faith.

Placing Jesus’ life and ministry around the year 30 CE was not accidental. This timing aligned closely with prophetic frameworks found in Hebrew Scriptures. For example, the “seventy weeks” prophecy in Daniel, which many early believers interpreted as predicting the coming of a Messiah in the early first century. Anchoring Jesus’ story during the governorship of Pontius Pilate and situating his death at Passover tied the narrative to recognizable historical events and religious symbolism.

This theological transformation was especially critical after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, which ended the possibility of traditional Jewish sacrificial rituals. Christianity’s new focus on spiritual atonement, not dependent on the Temple or priesthood, made the faith more flexible and universal. It opened the door for Gentiles and others outside Jewish tradition to join.

This is how Christianity went from a small sect within Judaism to a broader religion. It had nothing to do with a literal resurrection, just a “belief” in one.

+1 Nice summary

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judea at that time was a volatile landscape where messianic hopes ran high and apocalyptic expectations shaped much of Jewish thought.

The name Jesus, derived from the common Jewish name Yeshua, meaning “Yahweh saves,” was a perfect fit. It connected a new sect to Jewish tradition while symbolizing the very essence of salvation they proclaimed. Central to their theology was the idea of atonement, how humanity’s sins could be forgiven. Early Christians reinterpreted the ancient Jewish ritual of the Day of Atonement, where a scapegoat symbolically carried away the sins of the people, into a spiritual reality centered on Jesus’ crucifixion. The Gospel story of Jesus’ trial and the release of Barabbas served as a vivid allegory: Jesus takes the place of the guilty Barabbas, becoming the ultimate scapegoat, bearing the punishment on behalf of humanity. This represented a profound shift from repeated physical sacrifices performed in the Temple to a once-for-all spiritual sacrifice accessible through faith.

Placing Jesus’ life and ministry around the year 30 CE was not accidental. This timing aligned closely with prophetic frameworks found in Hebrew Scriptures. For example, the “seventy weeks” prophecy in Daniel, which many early believers interpreted as predicting the coming of a Messiah in the early first century. Anchoring Jesus’ story during the governorship of Pontius Pilate and situating his death at Passover tied the narrative to recognizable historical events and religious symbolism.

This theological transformation was especially critical after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, which ended the possibility of traditional Jewish sacrificial rituals. Christianity’s new focus on spiritual atonement, not dependent on the Temple or priesthood, made the faith more flexible and universal. It opened the door for Gentiles and others outside Jewish tradition to join.

This is how Christianity went from a small sect within Judaism to a broader religion. It had nothing to do with a literal resurrection, just a “belief” in one.

Thank you for the historical context. Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

Good points!

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist.

What's your evidence that he did exist?

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them.

Are there texts refuting Mohammed? I'm pretty sure there are texts refuting Jesus because the jews didnt believe in Jesus as a messiah. They have texts that refute who Jesus was. So did Mohammed. Whether he existed is one thing. There is nothing miraculous about a man who was a preacher. Whether the gospels are true is another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

Good points!

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist.

What's your evidence that he did exist?

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them.

Are there texts refuting Mohammed? I'm pretty sure there are texts refuting Jesus because the jews didnt believe in Jesus as a messiah. They have texts that refute who Jesus was. So did Mohammed. Whether he existed is one thing. There is nothing miraculous about a man who was a preacher. Whether the gospels are true is another.

I don't know much about Mohammed. I wanted to address the disputing Jesus existence. As shown in other posts, those sources claiming to know Jesus are highly suspect. The earliest two non-Christian sources are also highly suspect. Add in that there are no criticisms of him as one would expect for someone who was supposedly very disruptive to the established Jewish religious leaders, and that is also suspect. Combine all these facts together and come to a conclusion.

[Anonymous]

I agree. The fact that there weren't a lot of criticisms is actually suspect, not a positive for his existence.

[Anonymous]

I have spent the past few months asking what more it would take for him to come back again if he were real. Sorry, folks, it’s all fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have spent the past few months asking what more it would take for him to come back again if he were real. Sorry, folks, it’s all fiction.

Some Christians would say that He has come back -- in the body of Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have spent the past few months asking what more it would take for him to come back again if he were real. Sorry, folks, it’s all fiction.

This is what it will take:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

(1) There will be a departing of the faith —if you think you are a good person then you go to heaven, no Jesus required. Rainbow flag churches, women pastors/priests. Prosperity gospel. Idolatry of Mary.

(2) The Man of Sin —The Antichrist, appears and demands to be worshiped as God. You will not be able to buy or sell unless you take a mark/tattoo that declares that you, whether you are rich or poor, believe Great Leader is God.