Many atheist and biblical skeptics lay claim that Jesus was a myth, who never existed historically. They also claimed that Jesus was a figure borrowed from Krishna, Tammuz, or Egyptian and Greek legends.
Although am not the first to talk about this, but there is sufficient evidence that Jesus really existed and almost all scholars have seen enough evidence and made them conclude that Jesus was Baptised by John the Baptist and was Crucified. Hence, the Jesus myth theory is debunked


The following is an excerpt from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The term "historical Jesus " refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods," in "contrast to
Christological definitions (' the dogmatic Christ ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')." It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.
The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate . Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of
messianic and apocalyptic expectations. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist , whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for about one to three years prior to his execution. He preached salvation, cleansing from sins, and the Kingdom of God , using
parables with startling imagery, and was said to be a teacher and believed in faith healing. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature. He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God. Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in
Judea , where he caused a disturbance at the Temple .
It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem. The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be
Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria. The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the Gospel accounts. These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer , Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.

SHALOM!

Commonsense should tell anyone, that when they killed someone for being a "PROPHET OF GOD," they do not LEAVE THE TEACHINGS THEY KILLED HIM FOR LAYING AROUND TO CONTINUE HIS WORK THEY WERE TRYING TO STOP!

. JOHN 9:13-22.

13. They brought to the Pharisees
him that aforetime was blind.
14. And it was the Sabbath day
when Jesus made the clay,
and opened his eyes.
15. Then again the Pharisees also asked him
how he had received his sight.
He said unto them,
"He put clay upon mine eyes,
and I washed, and do see."
16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees,
"This man is not of God,
because he keepeth not the Sabbath day."
Others said,
"How can a man that is a Sinner do such Miracles?"
And there was a division among them.
17. They say unto the blind man again,
"What sayest thou of him,
that he hath opened thine eyes?"
He said,
"He is a Prophet."
18. But the Jews did not believe concerning him,
that he had been blind, and received his sight,
until they called the parents of him
that had received his sight.
19. And they asked them, saying,
"Is this your son,
who ye say was born blind?
How then doth he now see?"
20. His parents answered them and said,
"We know that this is our son,
and that he was born blind:
21. "But by what means he now seeth,
we know not;
or who hath opened his eyes,
we know not:
he is of age;
ask him:
he shall speak for himself."
22. These words spake his parents,
because they feared the Jews:
for the Jews had agreed already,
that if any man did confess that he was Christ,
he should be put out of the Synagogue.

TO UNDERSTAND "THE HISTORICAL JESUS, " YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IN WHICH HE EXISTED.

You cannot take one factor out-of-context- say: "HISTORICAL RECORDS," and PRETEND that they would be THE SAME as the records of any ORDINARY PERSON- whose words DO NOT change a person's RELIGION, POLITICAL LOYALTIES, and FAMILY TIES.

. ACTS 19:17-20.

17. And this was known
to all the Jews and Greeks
also dwelling at Ephesus;
and fear fell on them all,
and the Name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.
18. And many that believed came,
and confessed,
and shewed their deeds.
19. Many of them also which used Curious Arts
brought their Books together,
and burned them before all men:
and they counted the price of them,
and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
20. So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed.

THE ANCIENTS BELIEVED THAT THE SPIRITUAL POWER OF AN ADEPT WAS CONTAINED IN HIS WRITINGS AND RELICS.

Therefore, when SAUL was running from-pilar-to-post trying to contain The Gospel, he surely destroyed all copies of Yahshua's Teachings that the people he arrested possessed.

Nobody said jesus didn't exist per se
That's ignorant
It is very likely a historical.jesus walled the earth
The problem is the extraordinary claims
And he was mentioned in very few texts other than the bible
Thy founder of the christian religion Paul never even met jesus' personally
The synoptic gospels were written 40 years after the dudes supposed death
Even if such a character existed he did not:
Doe for anyone's sins
Fly to the sky
Raise an army of undead people from their graves according to the bible
That's preposterous

jonbellion:
Nobody said jesus didn't exist per se
That's ignorant
It is very likely a historical.jesus walled the earth
The problem is the extraordinary claims
And he was mentioned in very few texts other than the bible
Thy founder of the christian religion Paul never even met jesus' personally
The synoptic gospels were written 40 years after the dudes supposed death
Even if such a character existed he did not:
Doe for anyone's sins
Fly to the sky
Raise an army of undead people from their graves according to the bible
That's preposterous

Well scholars are still debating on the ministry of Jesus.
#1
Did Jesus heal diseases?
There is possibility that he healed people from sickness and disease, but scholars don't believe it was a supernatural phenomenon(miracle), most ascribe it to the Placebo Effect

SHALOM!

Kalatium:

Well scholars are still debating on the ministry of Jesus.
#1
Did Jesus heal diseases?
There is possibility that he healed people from sickness and disease, but scholars don't believe it was a supernatural phenomenon(miracle), most ascribe it to the Placebo Effect

IT IS VERY IGNORANT TO SAY THAT NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YAHSHUA NEVER EXISTED.

That is EXACTLY what the Atheists are saying!

There is a book called THE CHRIST CONSPIRACY, by some DOROTHY M. MURDOCK- who changed her name to "ARCHYRA S." to make it sell better ("DOROTHY" is Oyinbo for "AMEBO," or "YARINBO:" it would reduce her credibility,) said that the "story" of Jesus was taken from the legend of HORUS, the Egyptian god, who was born of a virgin on December 25th, visited by three kings, was baptized, had twelve disciples, preached a d performed miracles, was crucified, arose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven- THEREFORE, SINCE IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED TO HORUS, ONCE, IT COULD NOT HAPPEN TO JESUS AGAIN!

The logic is insane enough, but then you factor in that NONE OF WHAT SHE SAYS ABOUT HORUS IS TRUE.

She seems to have invented all that nonsense- I do not know where, but I strongly suspect that it was NOT in KANSAS State!

The Oyinbo Atheists just put on their "POKER GAME FACE," and TOTALLY DENY everything that gets in their way until you bury them under an avalanche of TRUTH- then they say that you were "TALKING TOO MUCH."

SHALOM!

jonbellion:
Nobody said jesus didn't exist per se
That's ignorant

It is ignorant to say that Oyinbo Atheists do not deny the Historical Existence of YAHSHUA.

It is very likely a historical.jesus walled the earth
The problem is the extraordinary claims

The Claims of Yahshua are not extraordinary.

Holy men and Women around the World have exhibited similar Powers.

It is ignorance to not know this.

You never heard of the TOLTECS, the HINDUS, the TIBETANS, the TAOISTS.

You think that the Witches of Europe were executed for having CROOKED TEETH?

And he was mentioned in very few texts other than the bible

NONE OF WHICH YOU WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT.

As you also hide the fact that most of those who tried to report them were summarily PUT TO DEATH.

Thy founder of the christian religion Paul never even met jesus' personally

Look how Atheists play on people's ignorance?

IF PAUL FOUNDED THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, WHOM DID HE ARREST AND HAUL TO JERUSALEM FOR TRIAL AND EXECUTION?

If Paul founded Christianity, WHOM DID HE WRITE LETTERS TO?

Churches HE founded, or CHURCHES which existed before him?

He was a PHARISEE under GAMALIEL. He would have had the opportunity to see and hear AND REJECT YAHSHUA when he came to Jesusalem for the Great Feast. That is not an issue. He never claimed to have met Yahshua before his Resurrection.

However, HE DID CLAIM TO HAVE MET THE DISCIPLES.

How could he have met Yahshua's Disciples, if HE founded Christianity?

The synoptic gospels were written 40 years after the dudes supposed death

ACTUALLY, BIBLE SCHOLARS SAY THESE GOSPELS CAME OUT IN ABOUT 60AD, when PETER and PAUL were martyred.

Even if such a character existed he did not:

Once you admit Yahshua MAY have existed, all gainsaying claims as to what he COULD/COULD NOT have done are just LYING on your part because you are not qualified to comment on such matters.

Doe for anyone's sins
Fly to the sky
Raise an army of undead people from their graves according to the bible
That's preposterous

oaroloye:
SHALOM!



IT IS VERY IGNORANT TO SAY THAT NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YAHSHUA NEVER EXISTED.

That is EXACTLY what the Atheists are saying!

There is a book called THE CHRIST CONSPIRACY, by some DOROTHY M. MURDOCK- who changed her name to "ARCHYRA S." to make it sell better ("DOROTHY" is Oyinbo for "AMEBO," or "YARINBO:" it would reduce her credibility,) said that the "story" of Jesus was taken from the legend of HORUS, the Egyptian god, who was born of a virgin on December 25th, visited by three kings, was baptized, had twelve disciples, preached a d performed miracles, was crucified, arose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven- THEREFORE, SINCE IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED TO HORUS, ONCE, IT COULD NOT HAPPEN TO JESUS AGAIN!

The logic is insane enough, but then you factor in that NONE OF WHAT SHE SAYS ABOUT HORUS IS TRUE.

She seems to have invented all that nonsense- I do not know where, but I strongly suspect that it was NOT in KANSAS State!

The Oyinbo Atheists just put on their "POKER GAME FACE," and TOTALLY DENY everything that gets in their way until you bury them under an avalanche of TRUTH- then they say that you were "TALKING TOO MUCH."

There are even extra biblical sources that talked about Jesus Christ like the accounts of Josephus.

It is ignorant to say that Paul founded Christianity, he was the most active evangelist for the Gentiles.

P

Kalatium:
It is ignorant to say that Paul founded Christianity, he was the most active evangelist for the Gentiles.

Sorry I meant second founder

oaroloye:
SHALOM!



It is ignorant to say that Oyinbo Atheists do not deny the Historical Existence of YAHSHUA.



The Claims of Yahshua are not extraordinary.

Holy men and Women around the World have exhibited similar Powers.

It is ignorance to not know this.

You never heard of the TOLTECS, the HINDUS, the TIBETANS, the TAOISTS.

You think that the Witches of Europe were executed for having CROOKED TEETH?



NONE OF WHICH YOU WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT.

As you also hide the fact that most of those who tried to report them were summarily PUT TO DEATH.



Look how Atheists play on people's ignorance?

IF PAUL FOUNDED THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, WHOM DID HE ARREST AND HAUL TO JERUSALEM FOR TRIAL AND EXECUTION?

If Paul founded Christianity, WHOM DID HE WRITE LETTERS TO?

Churches HE founded, or CHURCHES which existed before him?

He was a PHARISEE under GAMALIEL. He would have had the opportunity to see and hear AND REJECT YAHSHUA when he came to Jesusalem for the Great Feast. That is not an issue. He never claimed to have met Yahshua before his Resurrection.

However, HE DID CLAIM TO HAVE MET THE DISCIPLES.

How could he have met Yahshua's Disciples, if HE founded Christianity?



ACTUALLY, BIBLE SCHOLARS SAY THESE GOSPELS CAME OUT IN ABOUT 60AD, when PETER and PAUL were martyred.



Once you admit Yahshua MAY have existed, all gainsaying claims as to what he COULD/COULD NOT have done are just LYING on your part because you are not qualified to comment on such matters.

sorry I meant second founder
But Paul never met any of thy original disciples apart from peter and James.He makes no mention of Jesus' Galilean ministry, or that he was accompanied by twelve disciples. Although he refers to Jesus as having been crucified, he offers no information about the time, place and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion described in the Gospel. And there are four authors accredited to Paul in the new testament. I advise you to k through your religion with an open mind as I don't have time to argue

There is almost no way that the character of Jesus could be wholly invented from scratch. Just like other historical figures, Jesus existed but his life was embellished and glorified to form the myth people believe now.

The contentions or biggest issues in the story of Jesus are;

1. His birth. Realistically no one conceives without intercourse.
But it was believed that he was conceived by a virgin. The issue with this is that at that period in history, this fantastic stories were quite common.
Ceasar claimed to be descended from a god, almost all Roman emperors claimed divine descent. The belief in a god man wasn't present in early Judaism but in Greco Roman cultures.

The virgin birth and son of god status was added to give the story and claims of early Christians much needed weight.

The ironical thing is that the same claims in this present world would scatter all forms of credibility but in ancient times the opposite was the case.

2. The claim of being descended from David.

Most Christians don't understand that in ancient times, people could claim anything for themselves to give their movement credence. Appolonius of Tyana did the same thing, Simon Bar Kochba did the same thing.
Record keeping was not meticulous and well detailed then, people could claim to be bastard children of emperors, they could basically claim anything and there would be no confirmation.

The genealogy in Matthew and Luke are very contradictory which shows that the later gospel writers tried to fit him into David's lineage.

3. The miracles of Jesus. The average Christian knows that he has to utilise deep faith to believe all the miracles like raising the dead, walking on water, feeding the five thousands etc.
The question I have for Christians is this,
Which is easier to do ?
- walk on water, raise the dead, heal the lepers etc or

- write a story on a papyrus scroll about a man that lived before that did all that and distribute the scrolls to a few people and have them distribute it over time. Mind you, this happened when people still taught that demons caused chicken pox, the world was flat and the sun and stars were in our sky.

It takes just a mustard seed of rational thinking to see that the latter is much easier and it has been replicated over time. People have created such belief systems over centuries and they still do today. In this modern world, what appears to be easier to do? Start a church or heal cancer with your hands. The answer to that shows how easy it is to start religions but how difficult it is to substantiate their claims.

4. Death and resurrection of Jesus. The rabbi Yahshua most likely was killed or crucified.

Based on the level of humiliation that crucifixion represented, no one at that time would have liked to claim that their teacher was crucified. The crucifixion most likely happened, the issue is that the events following the crucifixion are responsible for the creation of the Christian religion.
Based on the facts, Romans kept crucified people in mass graves, Jesus was not popular contrary to what the gospels claim, if Jesus was popular then every contemporary writer would've written about him at that time. Philo of Alexandria, tacitus etc never mentioned him. This shows that the Romans and Jews of that period weren't interested in his death. Anything could have been done to his body after death. It could have been hidden, burned, swapped etc. This makes it easier for the gospel writers of 4 decades later to claim that he was resurrected. Remember also that Muhammad also ascended to heaven in a flying horse but I don't think any Christian sees that claim as anything but a hoax. But the same Christian believes that a crucified Jesus resurrected from the dead based on hearsay. Where there video cameras then, was there any standard portrait of him at that time, how many people could describe him. If his body was presented , how many would have verified that it was him?


5. The teachings of Jesus. There are so many gospels but only four made it to orthodoxy. You can read the gospel of peter, Thomas[ which nearly made it to the NT], Mary Magdalene, James etc. The four gospels have very similar teachings but the remaining have divergent teachings.

Every doctrine of Christianity exists today because someone won a war and the victors always narrate history. The war for orthodoxy was won by the Pauline faction of Christianity. They defeated the Gnostics, nestorians, marcionites and all other sects.
Winning a war does not connote divine acceptance. If it does, how many Christians believe god was behind the Mongols, Napoleon and other great conquerors that were involved in heinous crimes.
The whole Christian doctrine is as a result of the victory of Pauline Christianity over other sects. If gnosticism had won that battle then all Christians today won't have believed in a physical Jesus but a spirit that appeared to man.

There was no way jesus could have descended from David from the fathers side according to the prophecy because he was born of a Virgin

LiberaDeus:
There is almost no way that the character of Jesus could be wholly invented from scratch. Just like other historical figures, Jesus existed but his life was embellished and glorified to form the myth people believe now.

The contentions or biggest issues in the story of Jesus are;

1. His birth. Realistically no one conceives without intercourse.
But it was believed that he was conceived by a virgin. The issue with this is that at that period in history, this fantastic stories were quite common.
Ceasar claimed to be descended from a god, almost all Roman emperors claimed divine descent. The belief in a god man wasn't present in early Judaism but in Greco Roman cultures.

The virgin birth and son of god status was added to give the story and claims of early Christians much needed weight.

The ironical thing is that the same claims in this present world would scatter all forms of credibility but in ancient times the opposite was the case.

2. The claim of being descended from David.

Most Christians don't understand that in ancient times, people could claim anything for themselves to give their movement credence. Appolonius of Tyana did the same thing, Simon Bar Kochba did the same thing.
Record keeping was not meticulous and well detailed then, people could claim to be bastard children of emperors, they could basically claim anything and there would be no confirmation.

The genealogy in Matthew and Luke are very contradictory which shows that the later gospel writers tried to fit him into David's lineage.

3. The miracles of Jesus. The average Christian knows that he has to utilise deep faith to believe all the miracles like raising the dead, walking on water, feeding the five thousands etc.
The question I have for Christians is this,
Which is easier to do ?
- walk on water, raise the dead, heal the lepers etc or

- write a story on a papyrus scroll about a man that lived before that did all that and distribute the scrolls to a few people and have them distribute it over time. Mind you, this happened when people still taught that demons caused chicken pox, the world was flat and the sun and stars were in our sky.

It takes just a mustard seed of rational thinking to see that the latter is much easier and it has been replicated over time. People have created such belief systems over centuries and they still do today. In this modern world, what appears to be easier to do? Start a church or heal cancer with your hands. The answer to that shows how easy it is to start religions but how difficult it is to substantiate their claims.

4. Death and resurrection of Jesus. The rabbi Yahshua most likely was killed or crucified.

Based on the level of humiliation that crucifixion represented, no one at that time would have liked to claim that their teacher was crucified. The crucifixion most likely happened, the issue is that the events following the crucifixion are responsible for the creation of the Christian religion.
Based on the facts, Romans kept crucified people in mass graves, Jesus was not popular contrary to what the gospels claim, if Jesus was popular then every contemporary writer would've written about him at that time. Philo of Alexandria, tacitus etc never mentioned him. This shows that the Romans and Jews of that period weren't interested in his death. Anything could have been done to his body after death. It could have been hidden, burned, swapped etc. This makes it easier for the gospel writers of 4 decades later to claim that he was resurrected. Remember also that Muhammad also ascended to heaven in a flying horse but I don't think any Christian sees that claim as anything but a hoax. But the same Christian believes that a crucified Jesus resurrected from the dead based on hearsay. Where there video cameras then, was there any standard portrait of him at that time, how many people could describe him. If his body was presented , how many would have verified that it was him?


5. The teachings of Jesus. There are so many gospels but only four made it to orthodoxy. You can read the gospel of peter, Thomas[ which nearly made it to the NT], Mary Magdalene, James etc. The four gospels have very similar teachings but the remaining have divergent teachings.

Every doctrine of Christianity exists today because someone won a war and the victors always narrate history. The war for orthodoxy was won by the Pauline faction of Christianity. They defeated the Gnostics, nestorians, marcionites and all other sects.
Winning a war does not connote divine acceptance. If it does, how many Christians believe god was behind the Mongols, Napoleon and other great conquerors that were involved in heinous crimes.
The whole Christian doctrine is as a result of the victory of Pauline Christianity over other sects. If gnosticism had won that battle then all Christians today won't have believed in a physical Jesus but a spirit that appeared to man.

religion shoes how people can be blinded to their beliefs but skeptical of others
Mohammed flew to heaven on a horse-lie!
Joseph smith found golden plates in his backward-lie!
Jesus rose up from the dead with his wounds and flew to heaven-100% legit
*facepalm*
If there is an adult that believes in Santa Claus and tells you a lot of extraordinary things like he has an infinite sack, he flies and delivers presents to all the kids at night with flying reindeers and he passes though a chimney
As a rational adult thy questions you'll ask are things like
-how? Reindeers don't fly
-what of houses that don't have chimneys
-wont he be too fat
-how would he deliver toys to children of 195(plus Thailand) countries of the world in one night
They would have absurd answers for everything because it's what they believe in
But funny enough they'll be able to see the flaws in other religious doctrines except thiers
The human mind though

jonbellion:
sorry I meant second founder
But Paul never met any of thy original disciples apart from peter and James.He makes no mention of Jesus' Galilean ministry, or that he was accompanied by twelve disciples. Although he refers to Jesus as having been crucified, he offers no information about the time, place and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion described in the Gospel. And there are four authors accredited to Paul in the new testament. I advise you to k through your religion with an open mind as I don't have time to argue

Because Paul is silent of Jesus life does not make the gospels account false

Questions
#1 If Jesus was not born of a Virgin birth, Did you mean that Joseph and Mary had intercourse to give birth to Jesus?
#2 If Jesus did not descent from David, which family line did he come from?
#3 If Jesus preexistence is false, why was he exalted among other Jews, why was he called the son of God or and second person of the trinity?
#4 If Jesus never performed miracles, why do early Christians recorded that Jesus perform miracles and even his disciples?
#5 If the account that we have in the gospels are unreliable which is other account of Jesus Life is accurate?
#6 If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, why was his body missing? If you say the body was stolen where was it kept or buried that his body was not found?

I need answers to the above questions.

Kalatium:
Questions
#1 If Jesus was not born of a Virgin birth, Did you mean that Joseph and Mary had intercourse to give birth to Jesus?
#2 If Jesus did not descent from David, which family line did he come from?
#3 If Jesus preexistence is false, why was he exalted among other Jews, why was he called the son of God or and second person of the trinity?
#4 If Jesus never performed miracles, why do early Christians recorded that Jesus perform miracles and even his disciples?
#5 If the account that we have in the gospels are unreliable which is other account of Jesus Life is accurate?
#6 If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, why was his body missing? If you say the body was stolen where was it kept or buried that his body was not found?

I need answers to the above questions.

1. Yes if a human being existed then he is a product of copulation from sexual intercourse. Do you know anyone born of a virgin? The only way you can believe the virgin birth is by faith. But if you want to go the route of faith then no need to ask questions or to read books or engage in any intellectual activity. By faith, all things are true and all things can be false.

2. If we are to take the gospel as truth then he didn't descend from David. Cause Luke puts the genealogy of Jesus as descending from David through Joseph. But if you are to believe in the virgin birth then Jesus didn't descend from David since Joseph's seed wasn't in him.
If you are to face reality, there were hundreds of towns in Judea, he could have descended from any normal line. He most likely preached a reformative, compelling message. The issue is that he might have never claimed to be descended from David but his later disciples in order to present him as the messiah and keep his legend going on had to invent the son of David myth. One thing you need to know about reformers and great thinkers is that most times they were humble and didn't want fame but their followers wanted most times to profit from the new movement.

3. Many people have been called sons of god. The Jews never exalted him. Read the babylonian Talmud and see what the Jews think about Jesus. Consider that the Jews knew him better than most people and they utterly rejected the claims of his messianic authority.
Even Caesar claimed to be a son of god. Augustus had the title son of god and was exalted amongst the whole Roman empire. Why don't you see him as the son of god.

4. Early people generally recorded many superb claims. Am sure you have heard of Aristotle and respect his teaching, do you know Aristotle believed that Hercules was real, he also believed in dragons etc. Many ancient people believed in crazy things and they never failed to document their beliefs. Ancient Greeks believed that King Midas4 had a touch that turned everything to gold and they documented it. Documentation of superb miracles 2000 years ago when there was no standard of textual criticism, journalistic integrity, fact finding, video evidence doesn't serve as proof that the miracles happened. Try and read ancient folklore and see how ancient people thought. Think about your country Nigeria, people believed as at 20years ago that we played a game against India and we lost 99-1 , you know the whole story.

5. We can't get accurate accounts of his life, the same with Alexander the great, Aristotle, Socrates, Darius, Caesar etc. We also can't define the accent of the Latin language, we know the words but can't determine the accent, we don't know the first indo European language or first African language. So many facts are lost forever and ever in the past never to be examined accurately again. For example, please can you give me the first name of your great great great great great great grandfathers first wife?

6. Firstly, he wasn't popular when he died. If he was, then all contemporary historians within the time frame of 1AD to 34 AD would have attested to the fact. The earliest mentions were 30 to 40 years later. Romans crucified people together and kept their bodies in mass graves unattended to. It was very possible for dubious disciples to hide and steal the body and also dispose of it in order to claim resurrection. I doubt that happened, I believe the resurrection doctrine wasn't preached till 40 years later. There was no need to preserve his body when he died. If there were no standard cemeteries at that period then it follows that 40 years after his death, any body could claim he resurrected since there will be no means to verify it. Was there any picture of his face at that time? No
So the hoax was very easy to pull off.

jonbellion:
There was no way jesus could have descended from David from the fathers side according to the prophecy because he was born of a Virgin

What if Mary was also a descendant of David

11 miracles
If you say the record of miracles in the bible are forged, then what about the documentary of these11 miracles :

SOURCES
The source of the first story is the heart surgeon involved, Dr Chauncey Crandall of Florida, a respected cardiologist in the US (as this summary shows) with over twenty years experience. He has performed heart operations in many hospitals and holds professorships in several universities.
The other 10 case histories come from the book The Miracles by Dr H Richard Casdorph an experienced doctor and
medical researcher who has published more than a hundred research papers in a career that has spanned almost 6 decades. In the mid 70s he undertook a research project with a difference. He interviewed ten people who claimed to have been miraculously healed of serious conditions. He examined all the case histories – X-rays, medical reports, etc – and also submitted them to medical specialists for review.

THE HEALINGS

JEFF MARKIN
In 2006 Jeff suffered a massive heart attack and was taken to hospital where an emergency team of doctors and nurses tried for 40 minutes to re-start his heart without success. They called in Dr Crandall as a cardiac specialist, to confirm Jeff was dead.
“As I entered the ER [emergency room] it was like a war zone. Here was this lifeless body on a stretcher.” Dr Crandall said later. “His face, his arms, his legs were pitch black with death.”
Dr Crandall confirmed what the team already knew, Jeff was dead. However then a “voice” in his head told him to pray for the man. Dr Crandall was sure it was God, so he prayed for Jeff, then stopped the surprised medical team who were preparing the body for the morgue, and directed them to give him one more shock with the paddles. His heartbeat returned almost immediately and Jeff subsequently fully recovered.
This apparent miracle was first recorded by the
International Press Association and on the World Christian Doctors Network (which gave no details), and the website of an organisation named
ASSIST . It was shown on Fox News WSVN7 Florida , based on interviews with Jeff and Dr Crandall, and you can see a transcript of that video here . Wanting to further verify these stories, I found the same story reported by the American College of Radiology (but it is no longer available), on Fox News and Palm Beach Daily News archive (it was originally a feature story, but is now only in the archive).
The various accounts are not totally clear and consistent (the Fox News print reporter in particular seems to have got some of the facts a little garbled), but agree about all the main details.
Jeff Markin wasn’t exactly a believer before that day but this experience has made him believe there is a higher purpose for his life: “I want to get the right message across that miracles do happen….. I’m so happy I have a second chance.” Dr Crandall comments: “You are speaking to a scientist, a cardiologist, someone who loves medicine. I’ve never, ever seen this. There are always people that do not believe these events, and I will just tell them that it did happen. It was a real story, a real life that was restored.”

LISA LARIOS
Lisa was diagnosed with cancer of the hip when she was 12, but thought it had been removed during the biopsy. The family decided chemotherapy was too traumatic and called it off after one dose, and Lisa was unable to walk unaided. The family were Catholic, though not very religious, and a family friend invited the family to a christian healing meeting conducted by ‘healing evangelist’ Kathryn Kuhlman. The friend fasted and prayed for a week beforehand.
During the service, Lisa felt a warm feeling in her stomach, and Kathryn Kuhlman said someone in her section was being healed from cancer and should stand up. Lisa, against her mother’s wishes, stood up and was able to walk without pain for the first time since the problem had appeared. Lisa was X-rayed several times after than, and it became clear that something strange had indeed occurred. Further X-rays (reproduced in the book) were taken and reviewed by several doctors, and it became clear that Lisa’s hip had been fully restored and the cancer was gone
.
ELFRIEDA STAUFFER
Elfrieda was ‘critically ill’ with chronic rheumatoid arthritis, and unable to alk or dress herself when she was taken to a healing meeting by her husband. She had avoided going because “she did not believe in that kind of thing”, but after much prayer by her husband and urging by some friends, she agreed to go. During the meeting she felt that parts of her body that had been in extreme pain were becoming pain-free, and she was able to move them. Dr Casdorph points out that gradual spontaneous remissions can occur with this disease, but “she emerged from this severe disability to complete normalcy within a matter of seconds or minutes. This is not spontaneous remission.”

MARIE ROSENBERGER
In 1970, at age 44, Marie started suffering from severe headaches. She underwent brain surgery, and a tumour was removed, but the surgeons could not remove it all, and the biopsy showed is was malignant. The tumour began to grow back, and Marie was not expected to live. The family decided to spend an evening praying for her healing and her husband stayed up all night. He had a vision of the tumour being healed, but Marie seemed little improved when she woke. However she stopped taking her medication, and continued to improve, as visits to her neurosurgeon confirmed, with some amazement The book discusses the medical documentation and reproduces arteriograms.

MARION BURGIO
When multiple sclerosis first affected Marion in 1958, she was not yet 30, pregnant, and she felt numbness in her hands, kept falling over, and generally started losing coordination. But it was not diagnosed for four years, and by then she was dteriorating steadily. Ten years later, she had bad headaches, a deformed forearm, was incontinent, had a marked loss of hearing and vision and was unable to eat or even hold her head up. A friend visited regularly to pray for her and invited her to a Kathryn Kuhlman healing meeting.
Marion at first refused to go, but eventually was taken in a wheel chair. She can’t remember exactly what happened, but during the service she found herself standing up, with her back and limbs straight for the first time in years. She began to walk immediately, and later her surprised doctor found she had been healed of all symptoms, including the deformities. She and her husband became strong believers in Jesus.

MARVIN BIRD
Arteriosclerotic heart disease was (and I assume still is) the most common cause of death in the western world.Marvin Bird had his first heat attack at age 46, and over the next 16 years was hospitalised because of his heart condition 17 times. One artery was completely blocked and the others were half blocked (as shown in angiograms reproduced in the book), but he declined a coronary artery bypass because, at age 60, he didn’t think he would survive surgery. He attended healing meeting even though he wasn’t then a believer, and an assistant, believing he had been healed, invited him to stand up. He couldn’t previously do on his own, but now was able to. Doctors later confirmed he was fully healed, and Marvin started to attend church and believe in Jesus.

RAY JACKSON
In 1972, Ray Jackson had a kidney removed in the Duke University Medical Center because of cancer. He recovered well, but two years later doctors had to remove a finger because they found cancer had spread there. However shortly after, they found cancer in his spine, pelvis, breastbone and leg, and this time surgery was out of the question. (Two bone scans are reproduced in the book.) He was booked in for radiation treatment, but advised he could expect to live no more than a year.
Many friends were praying for his healing, and before he began the radiation treatment, he woke in the night to hear a voice tell him he would be healed. The next day he attended a ‘Kathryn Kuhlman miracle service’, during which the pain disappeared instantly. Tests the next day still showed the lesions, but subsequent tests showed that healthy new bone had filled in where the lesions had been. This case is notable because of the wealth of medical detail available from Duke to confirm the healing.

PEARL BRYANT
Pearl was a doctor of speech therapy who had suffered from a range of medical problems – arthritis, kidney, gall bladder and liver problems – for most of her life. By the time she was in her sixties she had to wear long-leg braces whenever she was out of bed because of weak knees and many falls. Other physical problems (fainting, headaches, nausea and digestrive problems) also worsened at this time. A devout christian, she began praying for healing in her late seventies, then finally managed to get to a healing meeting. During the meeting she felt an unusual ‘grinding’ sensation in her body, beginning with her left hip and gradually moving around her whole body and ending in her neck. She couldn’t take the leg braces off in public to test her healing, but next morning she was able to walk unaided and regained full movement. She was fully healed
.
ANNE SOULTS
Over just a few weeks, Anne began to have serious problems reading, speaking and remembering. A series of brain scans (some of which are reproduced in the book) and visits to different specialists revealed she had a lesion that was increasing in size, consistent with a tumour. However following prayer from a prayer group and at a healing service, further scans showed no evidence of an abnormality. Dr Casdorph comments: “This lady’s brain abnormality was well documented by the standard diagnostic techniques and she was seen by many specialists.”

PAUL TROUSDALE
Paul, a successful businessman, was admitted to hospital with severe gastrointestinal bleeding after fainting several times. He required many blood transfusions over several days. he had only recently begun to attend church, and his minister visited one morning and prayed for him. The minister said that he had been healed, but doctors would not release him until his condition was re-tested. All tests showed the bleeding and ceased and there were no abnormalities. paul’s condition before and after were “well documented by medical records”.

DELORES WINDER
Delores had severe spinal problems and pain for years, necessitating four spinal fusions and two cordotomies ( a procedure that disables part of the spinal cord to reduce pain but results in no feeling in the legs). For fourteen years she wore a body cast and neck brace to relieve the pain and enable her to walk. At the end of this time, the doctors told her there was little they could do for her, she had so many conditions, but that she could prolong her life by staying still in bed, advice she was unwilling to take.
Although she was a christian, she didn’t believe in divine healing, but she was persuaded to attend a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting. She experienced a burning sensation in her legs (the first thing she had felt in her legs for a time) and was completely healed. She was also strongly renewed in her faith. Dr Casdorph says he has medical records for Delores “an inch thick” showing seven serious spinal procedures and the increasingly desperate medical diagnoses, culminating in the doctor’s acceptance that she had “gotten an excellent result physically”.

WHAT WE CAN LEARN
It is a sad fact that many people we pray for are not healed, but these stories encourage us christians to continue to believe in the power of God to heal, and to continue to pray.
But what is the value of such stories for convincing non-believers that God is alive and active?
It is my experience that non-believers can have two quite different responses.
Many have a general belief in God, and are happy to believe in miracle healings. Such stories encourage them, and may be useful in stirring them to seek God.
Others are more sceptical. They say they will only believe in something when there is evidence. But when offered good evidence such as is in these case studies, they tend to take a different line and say miracles are unscientific and cannot possibly happen, so the stories cannot be true. This is a reflection of an argument by 18th century philosopher David Hume, who argued that, since a miracle is by definition a rare event, it is always more likely that there is another explanation than that the evidence should be believed. Hume’s argument has been refuted (some would say only ‘contested’) but it is still used. I think the evidence of healing miracles is still useful in discussion with these sceptics, but only if either (1) we have first hand knowledge of the healing, or (2) it is very well attested, as in the cases here.



Are these miracles false or what?

Kalatium:


There are even extra biblical sources that talked about Jesus Christ like the accounts of Josephus.

Oh, not that one!

Kalatium:
Questions
#1 If Jesus was not born of a Virgin birth, Did you mean that Joseph and Mary had intercourse to give birth to Jesus?
#2 If Jesus did not descent from David, which family line did he come from?
#3 If Jesus preexistence is false, why was he exalted among other Jews, why was he called the son of God or and second person of the trinity?
#4 If Jesus never performed miracles, why do early Christians recorded that Jesus perform miracles and even his disciples?
#5 If the account that we have in the gospels are unreliable which is other account of Jesus Life is accurate?
#6 If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, why was his body missing? If you say the body was stolen where was it kept or buried that his body was not found?

I need answers to the above questions.

Do you know what they call "complex question" in philosophy?

LiberaDeus:


1. Yes if a human being existed then he is a product of copulation from sexual intercourse. Do you know anyone born of a virgin? The only way you can believe the virgin birth is by faith. But if you want to go the route of faith then no need to ask questions or to read books or engage in any intellectual activity. By faith, all things are true and all things can be false.

2. If we are to take the gospel as truth then he didn't descend from David. Cause Luke puts the genealogy of Jesus as descending from David through Joseph. But if you are to believe in the virgin birth then Jesus didn't descend from David since Joseph's seed wasn't in him.
If you are to face reality, there were hundreds of towns in Judea, he could have descended from any normal line. He most likely preached a reformative, compelling message. The issue is that he might have never claimed to be descended from David but his later disciples in order to present him as the messiah and keep his legend going on had to invent the son of David myth. One thing you need to know about reformers and great thinkers is that most times they were humble and didn't want fame but their followers wanted most times to profit from the new movement.

3. Many people have been called sons of god. The Jews never exalted him. Read the babylonian Talmud and see what the Jews think about Jesus. Consider that the Jews knew him better than most people and they utterly rejected the claims of his messianic authority.
Even Caesar claimed to be a son of god. Augustus had the title son of god and was exalted amongst the whole Roman empire. Why don't you see him as the son of god.

4. Early people generally recorded many superb claims. Am sure you have heard of Aristotle and respect his teaching, do you know Aristotle believed that Hercules was real, he also believed in dragons etc. Many ancient people believed in crazy things and they never failed to document their beliefs. Ancient Greeks believed that King Midas4 had a touch that turned everything to gold and they documented it. Documentation of superb miracles 2000 years ago when there was no standard of textual criticism, journalistic integrity, fact finding, video evidence doesn't serve as proof that the miracles happened. Try and read ancient folklore and see how ancient people thought. Think about your country Nigeria, people believed as at 20years ago that we played a game against India and we lost 99-1 , you know the whole story.

5. We can't get accurate accounts of his life, the same with Alexander the great, Aristotle, Socrates, Darius, Caesar etc. We also can't define the accent of the Latin language, we know the words but can't determine the accent, we don't know the first indo European language or first African language. So many facts are lost forever and ever in the past never to be examined accurately again. For example, please can you give me the first name of your great great great great great great grandfathers first wife?

6. Firstly, he wasn't popular when he died. If he was, then all contemporary historians within the time frame of 1AD to 34 AD would have attested to the fact. The earliest mentions were 30 to 40 years later. Romans crucified people together and kept their bodies in mass graves unattended to. It was very possible for dubious disciples to hide and steal the body and also dispose of it in order to claim resurrection. I doubt that happened, I believe the resurrection doctrine wasn't preached till 40 years later. There was no need to preserve his body when he died. If there were no standard cemeteries at that period then it follows that 40 years after his death, any body could claim he resurrected since there will be no means to verify it. Was there any picture of his face at that time? No
So the hoax was very easy to pull off.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE GOSPELS
When judging the historical reliability of the gospels, scholars ask if the accounts in the gospels are, when judged using normal standards that historians use on other ancient writings, reliable or not. [26] The main issues are what are the 'original' gospels, whether the original gospel works were accurate eyewitness accounts, and whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately through the ages to us. In evaluating the historical reliability of the Gospels, scholars consider a number of factors. These include authorship and date of composition, [27] intention and genre, [24] gospel sources and oral tradition, [28][29] textual criticism,[30] and historical authenticity of specific sayings and narrative events. [27]
The genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts. New Testament scholar Graham Stanton states that "the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies." [31] Charles H. Talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the Graeco-Roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology.
[4] E.P. Sanders states that “these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature.” [1] Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vögtle writing for Karl Rahner in his encyclopedia of theological terms indicate that the gospels were written primarily as theological, not historical items. [32] Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis notes that "we must conclude, then, that the genre of the Gospel is not that of pure 'history'; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. In fact, 'gospel' constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world." [5] Some critics have maintained that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation. [33] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus, [34] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Scholars tend to consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts ) to be closer in genre to "pure" history, [6][6][35] although they also note that “This is not to say that he [Luke] was always reliably informed, or that - any more than modern historians - he always presented a severely factual account of events.” [6] New Testament scholar,
James D.G. Dunn believes that "the earliest tradents within the Christian churches [were] preservers more than innovators...seeking to transmit, retell, explain, interpret, elaborate, but not create de novo...Through the main body of the Synoptic tradition, I believe, we have in most cases direct access to the teaching and ministry of Jesus as it was remembered from the beginning of the transmission process (which often predates Easter) and so fairly direct access to the ministry and teaching of Jesus through the eyes and ears of those who went about with him." [36] Nevertheless, David Jenkins, a former Anglican Bishop of Durham and university professor, has stated that “Certainly not! There is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance.” [37]
Critical scholars have developed a number of criteria to evaluate the probability, or historical authenticity, of an attested event or saying represented in the gospels. These criteria are applied to the gospels in order to help scholars in reconstructions of the Historical Jesus . The criterion of dissimilarity argues that if a saying or action is dissimilar to, or contrary to, the views of Judaism in the context of Jesus or the views of the early church, then it can more confidently be regarded as an authentic saying or action of Jesus. [38]
[39] One commonly cited example of this is Jesus' controversial reinterpretation of the Mosaic law in his Sermon on the Mount, or Peter's decision to allow
uncircumcised gentiles into what was, at the time, a
sect of Judaism . The criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents such as the denial of Jesus by
Peter , or the fleeing of Jesus' followers after his arrest, and therefore such details would likely not have been included unless they were true. [40] Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate." [41]
The criterion of multiple attestation says that when two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is more likely that the accounts are accurate reports of events or that they are reporting a tradition which pre-dates the sources themselves. [42] This is often used to note that the four gospels attest to most of the same events, but that Paul's epistles often attest to these events as well, as do the writings of the early church, and to a limited degree non-Christian ancient writings. The criterion of cultural and historical congruency says that a source is less credible if the account contradicts known historical facts, or if it conflicts with cultural practices common in the period in question. [43] It is, therefore, more credible if it agrees with those known facts. For example, this is often used when assessing the reliability of claims in Luke-Acts, such as the official title of Pontius Pilate . Through linguistic criteria a number of conclusions can be drawn. The criterion of "Aramaisms" as it is often referred [44] holds that if a
saying of Jesus has Aramaic roots, reflecting Jesus' Palestinian context, the saying is more likely to be authentic.

JuanDeDios:
Do you know what they call "complex question" in philosophy?

The questions are complex abi

JuanDeDios:
Oh, not that one!

Why complaining or is his account unreliable?

@OP

I urge you to desist from reading purely religious sources when you want to get fact.

The post you made about healings was from a biased source. One of the so called recipients of healing named Lisa Larios later suffered some fatal effects of neglecting her normal medication.

Read the link below
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical5.htm

Your post about the gospels didn't negate or confirm anything.

Looking at your post about healing, ask yourself something, why are the miracle claims different from times past?
In the era of the gospels we heard of walking on water, multiplication of food, making lepers walk, making cripples whole etc ,

But in this present time, what we hear of are claims of healing a cancer patient and healing some other internal diseases, its not as if cancer is a small disease but it can't be verified if the faith healing actually caused the remission.

Why don't we hear of walking on water, making amputees whole, healing cripples etc
Its clear that in this era of greater journalistic scrutiny, the miraculous claims have been toned down. Doesn't that show you something?

Kalatium:

The questions are complex abi

No, that's not what I mean. A "complex question" is a logical fallacy. Google it.

Kalatium:

Why complaining or is his account unreliable?

Jesuphus' chronicles are generally reliable. But the presence of "Jesus" in Josephus' account is of dubious origin.

JuanDeDios:

No, that's not what I mean. A "complex question" is a logical fallacy. Google it.

So what are you suggesting

JuanDeDios:

Jesuphus' chronicles are generally reliable. But the presence of "Jesus" in Josephus' account is of dubious origin.

Jesephus never said anything explicit about Jesus. His account of Jesus is only a sentence long

One thing we need to understand when viewing the bible historically is that the gospels were more theological than historical. Only Luke is more historical in its accounts. John is the least historical deviating from the synoptic gospels. For these reasons, scholars deny that John the disciple wrote book of John.

Kalatium:

Jesephus never said anything explicit about Jesus. His account of Jesus is only a sentence long

Yes, just a sentence. The one scholars believe was interpolated. And a contextual reading indeed suggests interpolation.

Kalatium:


There are even extra biblical sources that talked about Jesus Christ like the accounts of Josephus.

josephus account of jesus is a forgery..

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, and others have done an especially good job of detailing that evidence. It is the aim of this article to offer a sort of synthesis of some of their key points and show the strength of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.
When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even come close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, we are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.
The three truths are:
1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.
Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, whatever their school of thought, assent to these three truths. We will see that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. But then we will see, even more significantly, that when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, but three. These three truths create a strongly woven, three chord rope that cannot be broken.

The Empty Tomb
To begin, what is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion?
First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."
Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In
Matthew 28:11-15 , there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.
Why is this important? Remember that the Jewish leaders were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, they were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."
Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events," as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary.
Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as frauds. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.
But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at best.
Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.
Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!
Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb."
Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, most recent scholars do not deny it. D.H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." Jacob Kremer, who has specialized in the study of the resurrection and is a NT critic, has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim.
I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask? Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer. There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty tomb, it is the only explanation in town!

The Resurrection Appearances
Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 , Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...
It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul receive this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed "may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses."
Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't automatically mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:
1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ
Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have covered up such a lie?
Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination?
The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that. Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb.
Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.

The Origin of the Christian Faith
Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can we explain the origin of that belief? William Lane Craig points out that there are three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences.
Could it have been Christian influences? Craig writes, "Since the belief in the resurrection was itself the foundation for Christianity, it cannot be explained as the later product of Christianity." Further, as we saw, if the disciples made it up, then they were frauds and liars--alternatives we have shown to be false. We have also shown the unlikeliness that they hallucinated this belief.
But what about pagan influences? Isn't it often pointed out that there were many myths of dying and rising savior gods at the time of Christianity? Couldn't the disciples have been deluded by those myths and copied them into their own teaching on the resurrection of Christ? In reality, serious scholars have almost universally rejected this theory since WWII, for several reasons. First, it has been shown that these mystery religious had no major influence in Palestine in the 1st century. Second, most of the sources which contain parallels originated after Christianity was established. Third, most of the similarities are often apparent and not real--a result of sloppy terminology on the part of those who explain them. For example, one critic tried to argue that a ceremony of killing a bull and letting the blood drip all over the participants was parallel to holy communion. Fourth, the early disciples were Jews, and it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to borrow from another religion. For they were zealous in their belief that the pagan religions were abhorrent to God.
Jewish influences cannot explain the belief in the resurrection, either. 1st century Judaism had no conception of a single individual rising from the dead in the middle of history. Their concept was always that everybody would be raised together at the end of time. So the idea of one individual rising in the middle of history was foreign to them. Thus, Judaism of that day could have never produced the resurrection hypothesis. This is also another good argument against the theory that the disciples were hallucinating. Psychologists will tell you that hallucinations cannot contain anything new--that is, they cannot contain any idea that isn't already somehow in your mind. Since the early disciples were Jews, they had no conception of the messiah rising from the dead in the middle of history. Thus, they would have never hallucinated about a resurrection of Christ. At best, they would have hallucinated that he had been transported directly to heaven, as Elijah had been in the OT, but they would have never hallucinated a resurrection.
So we see that if the resurrection did not happen, there is no plausible way to account for the origin of the Christian faith. We would be left with a third inexplicable mystery.