Christ was real, History backs it up

[Mr.Vicchio]

Paul L. Maier, Professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, observes: 'If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the cannons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty (Jesus was resurrected) on the morning of the first Easter. And no thread of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.'
The empty tomb is a silent testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that has never been refuted to this day.

One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph Story at the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. The rise of Harvard school of Law to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States is to be ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced his famous three-volume, A treatise on the Law of Evidence, which still is considered one the greatest single authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal procedure.
Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the courts of Justice.
Greenleaf came to the conclusion that according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.

http://dejnarde.ms11.net//mocker.htm

I read the whole bit, and it has some pretty good info, and I think some of you skeptics should read it, tear it apart.. if you can.

Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association and co-author of the Basic Advocacy Manual of the Association of the Trail Lawyers of America, says, 'Let's assume that Christ did not rise from the dead. Let's assume that the written accounts of his appearances (after his resurrection) to hundreds of people are false. I want to pose a question. With an event so well publicized, don't you think that it's reasonable that one historian, one eyewitness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ's body: "Listen, I saw that tomb-it was not empty! Look, I was there, Christ did not rise from the dead. As a matter of fact, I saw Chris's body." The silence of history is deafening when it comes to testimony against the resurrection.'


[b]same source[/]

Mr.Vicchio

[orgaelin]

Duh!

All this evidence doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead, it merely proves that the tomb was empty!!!

It doesn't prove anything about Jesus at all. It doesn't prove that Jesus even existed. It doesn't prove that the sepulchure of Joseph of Arimathea (which name is synonymous with Jesus' brother, James) was ever used for Jesus or ever intended to be used for him. It doesn't prove a damn thing other than that A tomb was found empty!

Jesus didn't rise from the dead. When he eventually did die, he died the same death every other human does. Elvis is really dead too you know!

~ Org.

[Matt W]

Indeed. How many grave-robbers do you know who go around publicising the fact?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm, actually there is written evidence from the time (not, as some claim hundreds of years later) eye witness Jews, Romans and Christians to both the Tomb being empty, and Jesus showing up in front of people.

Try reading the link :)

[orgaelin]

"Concerning the value of the presence of 'hostile witnessess' in applying the 'cross-examination' principle to the proclamation of the resurrection, law professor Dr. John Montgomery writes '...this rule underscores the reliability of testimony to Christ's resurrection which was presented contemporaneously in the synagogues-in the very teeth of opposition, among hostile cross-examiners who would certainly have destroyed the case for Christianity had the facts been otherwise.'
F.F.Bruce, the Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records being scrutinized by vocal opponents: 'Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnessess in the audience would have served as a further corrective.'
There are three steps in historical testimony: observation, recollection and recording. The bitter enemies of this new movement centering around Christ were ready to challenge any over-zealous follower who might have wanted to add a miracle or to sweeten up a story to make Christ more appealing. These 'hostile witnessess' were ready to correct any distortion in the 'observation, recollection and recording' of all that Jesus 'did and taught.'
Stan Gundry, theologian, asks, 'Is is possible that they would have allowed false statements to pass as facts concerning his life which would have opened itself to ridicule if it had created such stories to perpetuate itself.'"

Ok... so name them!

Who were these witnesses?

And even that doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead. It just suggests that the tomb was empty and that soon after they realised, Jesus showed up.

To prove that Jesus rose from the dead, you would have needed a number of eye-witness to his *actual* death, with his pulse having been checked. Those same eye-witnesses would have needed to then be in constant observation of the corpse untill it returned to life.

But since we all know they weren't, even they can't assure that Jesus genuinely rose from the dead. Indeed, there is more than plentiful evidence that the entire affair was staged to have it *appear* as a death and ressurection.

~ Org.

[Samildanach]

I reckon he had an evil twin.

[LeSire]

Instead of trying to name the witnesses who actually saw Christ;
Perhaps some of you might find the time to look into some of the literature about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most of the more 'openminded' works about the Scrolls, give very interesting 'deholyfication' or 'demystification' theories about Christ. However,, they DO confirm the excistense of Christ.
(Some even suggest that Paul, was in fact a roman spy/infiltrant who faked his conversion, and was send to make Christ look like false icon by giving him godlike features in his writings...)
Wikipedia gives nice details about the Scrolls...
(Although I must admit, I wrote some of it)

[MerlinsByte]

Christ was real, History backs it up

Merlin writes.....I have no doubt that Jesus Christ existed and walked the earth. I am as convinced as anyone could be that this man god was of a divine nature, or from a very advanced race, which would be the same as divinity (if the race were advanced beyond ours sufficiently).

Still I would very much love to have some tangible archeological evidence to bring the lost skeptics closer to the truth. Did Jesus rise from the dead...yes just as we may be able to in the future, what's the fuss about?

The bible is more accurate than most non believers want to admit. I think that even in today's mistranslated and corrupted incarnation, the main message still manages to eek through.

That is a good thing, good for mankind and good for our collective soul.

mb

[Lilith]

I kind of like the story that Jesus was a member of a Mystery school type religion and that his *resurrection* was staged as a rite of passage in those mysteries....He was teaching something...maybe just not what is written in the New Testament. I like what Merlin wrote..

"The bible is more accurate than most non believers want to admit. I think that even in today's mistranslated and corrupted incarnation, the main message still manages to eek through."

I think the keywords are "mistranslated and corrupted incarnation"....Right on.

[iHu]

Here's a dazzlingly obtuse newber reply from a nameless dude who hasn't read anyone's posts:

I'd like very much to believe in the historical figure Jesus Christ, and I like the proof to date. I think I enjoy making the truth manifest from the story and evidence of his existence so far. I admire his teachings and rank him way up there with all the greats. WTF, did somebody just say Yoda?

;^)

[Lilith]

May the force be with you.

[orgaelin]

I reckon he had an evil twin.

Funny you should say that!

In fact he didn't, but lots of people have fairly recently been convinced he did. Back in the nineties Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent hit the big time with some highly controversial books about Jesus, much of which is now being shown to be wrong, but nevertheless it was a fun storm and it started a still-growing movement looking into the facts about Jesus and bringing the findings to a wide audience.

Those two authors, among others, had the idea that Jesus had a twin brother in the form of Thomas Diddymus, both of which names mean 'twin'. However, marginally more schollarly work by Doctor Barbara Thiering and others has lately shown that, as with most of the biblical names, it was actually a reference to his role rather than his sharing Mary's womb with jesus!

LeSire, I agree that there is absolutely no question whatsoever about the actual existence of Jesus, although there are plenty of respectable schollars who still believe they can argue otherwise. Idiots!

The Dead Sea Scrolls are absolutely essential to understanding what was going on with Jesus, and they can be used to explain every little confusing story in the NT. Barbara Thiering discovered a technique called the "Pesher", by which the scroll-writers would encode hidden meaning into stories. Sometimes this was perfectly simple and self-evident, like having lions represent the Romans. There was no litteral den of lions!

And sometimes you would have to have indepth knowledge of the Pesher technique if you were to understand the obscure references. For example, where it talks about every man being given a white stone with his new Jewish name upon it. There is an actual, documented custom behind this that makes perfect sense.

MerlinsByte - I had no idea you felt like this about the big J!

I liked when you said,

or from a very advanced race, which would be the same as divinity

A very enlightened position! You watch any Star Trek?!

While I agree with you about the fact that none of the stuff claimed of Jesus is really *that* far out that it's impossible, but I disagree with you as to whether or not it's true!

I could compose a huge and lengthy argument on this subject, but not right now. I'm having a bad day!!

Basically, leaving out my justification for making such outrageous claims, I'll say that I believe he deliberately staged his own death. Everything was planned, right down to making it look like he was already dead so they wouldn't break his legs.

I think the keywords are "mistranslated and corrupted incarnation"....Right on.

Tee hee! Good one Lillith!

~ Org.