Incontrovertible Proof the Jesus Rose from the Grave

Evaluate them by/against what standard?
Evaluate them by Jesus's standard - he being the final arbiter (Jesus being the "Son of God").

When you say "my god is good", somebody's moral standard is being used to arrive at that judgement (and it is a judgement) - it is either
We don't say "my God is good" but "The God is good." There is only one God of everyone - the universal God.

a) yours, or
b) his.
Being a Christian involves acknowledging Jesus as demonstrating the correct moral standards.

If a), you are applying your moral standard to your god.
If b), you are judging your god by his own standard. Judging a thing by its own standard, is not a judgement at all, and morality without judgement, is mere obedience.
There is a strong element of obedience in Christianity - obedience to Jesus's teaching that is.

Pick one.

By "common consent of every person on earth", humans are not inanimates
If you are contending that being made of matter alone, would render us inanimates, prove it.
This is just word play on "inanimate" and on the atheist inability to accept the logical outcome of their materialism dogma.

Atheists are supreme hypocrites in labelling themselves as animate but yet proclaiming no God. (They also can't prove / show how life / animation came into being by mere chance chemical processes.)


In your worldview, not mine.
 
Evaluate them by Jesus's standard - he being the final arbiter (Jesus being the "Son of God").
Then you evaluate the God of the Bible... by the standards of the God of the Bible.

Which is as much an evaluation as allowing a chemistry student to mark their own exam: none.
We don't say "my God is good" but "The God is good." There is only one God of everyone - the universal God.
Whatever you call him/her/it, you judge it by its own standards.
Anybody can look good when judged by their own standards.
Being a Christian involves acknowledging Jesus as demonstrating the correct moral standards.
And how do you determine that he does this?

"Correct", according to what criteria?
There is a strong element of obedience in Christianity - obedience to Jesus's teaching that is.
Obedience does not connote morality.
Especially when you do not apply your own judgement to the commands you are receiving.
This is just word play on "inanimate" and on the atheist inability to accept the logical outcome of their materialism dogma.
1. Atheism is not, and does not entail, materialism,
2. "Logical outcome" would require demonstration by logic... I'm all ears.
Atheists are supreme hypocrites in labelling themselves as animate but yet proclaiming no God.
How so?
Would you care to prove your implied assertion that your god is responsible for "animation"?
(They also can't prove / show how life / animation came into being by mere chance chemical processes.)
My ignorance is not your evidence.
 
Then you evaluate the God of the Bible... by the standards of the God of the Bible.

Which is as much an evaluation as allowing a chemistry student to mark their own exam: none.

Whatever you call him/her/it, you judge it by its own standards.
Anybody can look good when judged by their own standards.

And how do you determine that he does this?

"Correct", according to what criteria?

Obedience does not connote morality.
Especially when you do not apply your own judgement to the commands you are receiving.

1. Atheism is not, and does not entail, materialism,
2. "Logical outcome" would require demonstration by logic... I'm all ears.

How so?
Would you care to prove your implied assertion that your god is responsible for "animation"?

My ignorance is not your evidence.
LOL. You are really upset at the possibility that you are not the center of the universe

Your narcissistic ego is unlimited

Do you feel your family did not cater to your every whim?
 
Then you evaluate the God of the Bible... by the standards of the God of the Bible.

Which is as much an evaluation as allowing a chemistry student to mark their own exam: none.

Whatever you call him/her/it, you judge it by its own standards.
Anybody can look good when judged by their own standards.

And how do you determine that he does this?

"Correct", according to what criteria?

Obedience does not connote morality.
Especially when you do not apply your own judgement to the commands you are receiving.

1. Atheism is not, and does not entail, materialism,
2. "Logical outcome" would require demonstration by logic... I'm all ears.

How so?
Would you care to prove your implied assertion that your god is responsible for "animation"?

My ignorance is not your evidence.
By what standard do you judge you?
 
I am highly skeptical of this, and of the claim Jesus was 5"11. He woukd have been a towering figure in that day.
Thanks for your post and your willingness to be open. It's one thing to be skeptical...it's another thing to deny the undeniable. The figure on the image that was made in the first century on the fabric that comes from the first century is 5'11". It could not have been fraudulent. The technology simply does not exist to even duplicate the image today.

Skepticism is strong protection against fraud. Logic is protection against unqualified skepticism.
 
If it were tested via procedures that satisfied you completely, and was found to be a fraud, would you drop the belief in it?
Yes...and why do you ask such a silly question? If it could be proven to you that the information in the negative image, using modern technology to make 3d images reveals two coins from the days of Pilate on the eyes...would you sitll believe a medieval fraud could produce the image? Yes or no? It there is incontrovertible proof that this image cannot be fraudulently produced in the Middle Ages, why do you still not believe it?

Do you think relics and historic artifacts produced my knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead? I've believed He rose from the dead since my first encounter with the Risen Lord in 1970, as a sophomore in high school. I'd be a fool to forget that encounter...and it's only gotten better since. I first heard of the shroud in the late eighties...the first time I saw it covered in the MSM...I knew more and studied more about the historicity of the Bible and its miraculous, consistent transmission through millennia before I'd heard of the shroud.
 
Last edited:
Yes...and why do you ask such a silly question? If it could be proven to you that the information in the negative image, using modern technology to make 3d images reveals two coins from the days of Pilate on the eyes...would you sitll believe a medieval fraud could produce the image? Yes or no?
No.

But thread is called "Incontrovertible Proof that Jesus Rose from the Grave", not "Incontrovertible Proof that The Shroud of Turin is from its purported date".
If there is incontrovertible proof that this image cannot be fraudulently produced in the Middle Ages, why do you still not believe it?
If.
 
There are no eyewitnesses. All the witnesses saw was an empty tomb after the event, and there are problems with the order in which those people visited the empty tomb.

An empty tomb can be due to tomb-robbers, recovery from a coma or a miracle. The third is the least likely.
This, like all your statements concerning the event, is entirely false. An eyewitness is one who saw. There is no "eyewitness" to the moment. There are many eyewitnesses to the resurrection, to the open tomb, to the state of the strips of linen and the cloth around His head. There are eyewitnesses who saw Him after He rose from the dead, and there were NO opposition accounts to refute the claims of hundreds. NO argument made against the Nazarene sect even ONCE claimed that the resurrection was not a fact.
 
Every religion has accounts of miracles. Do you believe all those accounts?

The resurrection has a different possible explanation, with supporting evidence from Josephus.
You do not know "every" religion. This claim is moot. Events in history are attested to with adequate proof...such as eyewitness accounts, and subsequent consequences.
 
Back
Top