from God

What records? And which ones say, "then he rose from the dead, and he's g-d? (And the son of g-d?)"
Even if there were records (which there aren't from the romans - although he is mentioned as a troublemaker but nothing else. They were good record keepers.)

Let's assume there were people who testified historically seeing him after death (resurrection.) This does not immediately point to Jesus being g-d. You still haven't given me evidence that Jesus is g-d other than the bible, which is circular (like my crop circle - alien arguemnt.)

it's not just the fact that people testified....they testified to the DEATH....knowing they would be killed, they still tesified....these were common every-day people....not people who had a history of following radical groups.....every-day people, saw Jesus, after his death....they knew He must have been God and so they gave their lives..do you not know that it was these very martyrs who helped jump start the church...because not much is more convincing that having your head chopped off for what you believe....obviously, even the Romans were convinced....

Let's even go further to say that these people were right - Jesus died, then became alive again (this happens in many religions, epic hero stories.) How would this be conclusive evidence that Jesus was g-d, and also the son of g-d?

If I were a Roman, I think I would have taken note, even just a scribble by the formal records "Came back alive after we killed him."

Lots of everyday people say they have seen the aliens making the crop circles.

What sources (other than the Bible) are you citing for evidenece?

Historians such as Josephus (c.37-110 AD), Ignatius (c.50-115 AD), Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD) and Tertullian (c.160-220 AD) were convinced of the authenticity of the resurrection. Their writings validate the accounts of the Gospel writers, who, according to leading biblical scholarship, recorded the event as soon as 37 AD and no later than 64 AD. In addition, other first and second century historians including Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Plinius Secundus, and Lucian of Samosata acknowledged the impact this incredible event had on the people of the time.

After he rose from the dead, Jesus appeared at least ten times to those who had known him and to as many as 500 people at one time. These appearances were not hallucinations; Jesus ate and talked with his followers and they touched his resurrected body.

Luke 24: 14, 36: Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but Him they did not see." ... While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

I Corinthians 15: 3-7: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day acording to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

it's not just the fact that he was raised from the dead, it's also the specific old testament prophecies that could not have been self-fulfilling or lucky..

Jesus, split history in two and essentially converted the romans....

Paul, who wrote 2/3 of the new testament was a jew and a persecuter of Christians....it's not out of the realm of possibility that Paul may have even killed Christians before his conversion...only God himself could've converted Paul....

You gave me testimonies (appreciated) the earliest of which were recorded 37 years after his death. This strikes me as strange.

You include the bible interwoven in your evidence, but I was asking for evidence outside of the bible. This is because saying g-d exists because of the bible and the bible wouldn't exist if g-d didn't is a circular argument, like the crop circles. (Because it is also a religious document, I think citing the old testament as a precedent for the new one is also circular. They are like two chapters of the same book, and the second was based on the first.)

I accept your evidence of outside source - of the post-mortem and post resurrection writings. I will make the assumption that these were people with credible minds (unlike some who may or may not be of supreme mental faculties who swear to having seen aliens make crop circles, being abducted, etc. An alien believer)

What would we think of someone's testimony in a court trial of somthing that happened 37 - 220 years ago?

How could someone have given an honest and valid testimony 220 years later? We are very long living humans, but our eldest is around 120. People lived shorter lives back then.

well, you're not realizing that Jesus died somewhere around 30 A.D.

also, writing anything in those days was rare....and i wouldn't be surprised if some documents re: Jesus were lost or destroyed...there are many instances in history where whole libraries containing unique and priceless documents went up in flames..

whoops, sorry about that. I forgot B.C. and A.D. in relation to the life of Christ.

Still, the Romans were very good record keepers. I would have expected them to write down somthing. Rising from the dead is pretty miraculous.

Yes, many documents were destroyed (and many parts of the bible destroyed and changed, for that matter.) But we still have Roman records.

I want you to understand the basis for non-belief based on the Bible being a circular argument and otheriwse not well supported as a divine message. Earlier in your post, you called the evidence irrefutable, but it seems to lie on thin ground.

the dead sea scrolls pre-dated our 'originals' by a thousand years....if you research the dead sea scrolls you will see that event as a slap in the face to your above statement.

I have found a source Dead sea scrolls/library of congress
But it does not make the argument clear.

Being that you see this as an obvious outside source, would you tell me what in the scrolls support Christianity (Jesus as the son of g-d and also g-d) and why?

I think that they were written post-biblically, once Christianity was gaining strength and populartiy - which means they would be influenced by the book (not necessarily by life events.) This kind of evidence would not be allowed in a trial.

The Dead Sea Scrolls include a range of contemporary documents that serve as a window on a turbulent and critical period in the history of Judaism. In addition to the three groups identified by Josephus (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), Judaism was further divided into numerous religious sects and political parties. With the destruction of the Temple and the commonwealth in 70 C.E., all that came to an end. Only the Judaism of the Pharisees--Rabbinic Judaism--survived. Reflected in Qumran literature is a Judaism in transition: moving from the religion of Israel as described in the Bible to the Judaism of the rabbis as expounded in the Mishnah (a third-century compilation of Jewish laws and customs which forms the basis of modern Jewish practice).
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to the events described in the New Testament, have added to our understanding of the Jewish background of Christianity. Scholars have pointed to similarities between beliefs and practices outlined in the Qumran literature and those of early Christians. These parallels include comparable rituals of baptism, communal meals, and property. Most interesting is the parallel organizational structures: the sectarians divided themselves into twelve tribes led by twelve chiefs, similar to the structure of the early Church, with twelve apostles who, according to Jesus, would to sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Many scholars believe that both the literature of Qumran and the early Christian teachings stem from a common stream within Judaism and do not reflect a direct link between the Qumran community and the early Christians.

While the importance of these documents is multifaceted, one of their principle contributions to biblical studies is in the area of textual criticism. This is the field of study in which scholars attempt to recreate the original content of a biblical text as closely as possible. Such work is legitimate and necessary since we possess only copies (apographs), not the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are of particular value in this regard for at least two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Hebrew canon, except Esther, is represented (to some degree) among the materials at Qumran (Collins, 1992, 2:89); and (2) they have provided textual critics with ancient manuscripts against which they can compare the accepted text for accuracy of content.

The Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that supports our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our translations are based.

I see. Thank you for the information.

That must be somewhat helpful on documenting Christian and especially Judean text. However, I think it would be near - impossible to resurrect the original bible (if there could be said to have ever been a solid, complete work - from what we know it was ever-changing due to politics.)

I still don't understand how the dead sea scrolls are a source of evidence for Jesus's death and resurrection, and him being both g-d and the son of g-d. They seem like a good discovery that can help historians, but they don't seem to make "a slap in the face" full of evidence of the above claims.

they confirm Christians' beliefs that God has preserved his word through the ages......the bible says, "all scripture is God breathed"...one would have to conclude, considering that God is presenting his word to the world that God, being all powerful, would oversee/ensure that His word and ONLY his word would 'make it' into the canon we call the Bible.

basically, back in the day, the most notable scholars/leaders met and voted on which documents would become part of the bible.....you just know they had more than one 'meeting'

i'm sure they prayed for guidance and were honest, good men....certainly, if God can create our universe, he could have led these men to sew together his scripture, and even preserve it through history...while some texts/manuscripts may differ in style, they do not differ in substance.

Again, you are depending on the bible for your evidence. This is a circular argument. I am looking for non-circular evidence that points to jesus as g-d and the son of g-d.

at this point...i must pause, and ask you why the heck, do you type a - between g and d

????


((can't wait to hear this))

I've explained this on the forum before. I was raised Jewish, and as such I was taught not to write out the name of g-d. I am more comfortable writing it g-d and feel disrespectful to believers to write it the other way. I am not afraid to write it, but I figure if that is what is most comfortable for me and it doesn't hurt anybody, why not.

(and in anticipation of you asking, I am an agnostic.)

If false prophets were so easy to detect, I'm not certain a warning would be needed or given. You said "if i am convinced it is false, i will admit my mistake and apologize", but that implies that only you can be convinced it is false. Is that not a rather arrogant statement to make?

is it?? i don't think so....

....implies that only i can be convinced it is false......i'm trying to understand your point here....perhaps you left out a word or perhaps you could re-phrase this so i better understand your point??

sorry...

So does this mean no one else can be convinced it is false? Is it not possible for it to be false and for you to believe it?

of course not...my hope was/is that if it is false, someone would bring it to my attention so that i wouldn't pay so much attention to something that is false....that was one of the reasons i posted it here was to have others test it....

thus far, no one has done so...