Please elaborate the on the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

Sure. We have multiple texts totalling over a thousand pages, all written within decades of Jesus' time, by people who claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. There are various explanations for this, including:

1) Jesus wasn't resurrected, but the authors falsely believed He was.

2) Jesus wasn't resurrected, but the authors lied and said He was.

3) Jesus wasn't resurrected, and the authors were intentionally writing fiction

4) Jesus was resurrected.

These four theories aren't the only possible ones, but they are the most popular and every other theory I've heard essentially falls into one of these categories, or is a mix of them.

The authors, by all evidence, were in a position to know whether He was resurrected or not, so it's very unlikely that they falsely believed He was resurrected. The idea that all of the Biblical authors, or their sources, were lying involves a conspiracy that would never have held up under the pressure Rome was putting on them. And the texts don't have any of the earmarks of fiction, and there's no evidence that the authors or their audiences took them as fiction. That leaves Jesus being resurrected as the only theory which is supported by the evidence.

There is no "conspiracy" that they were lying. You need to read about the early days of Christianity. There were scriptures flying all over the place, saying Jesus died or that Jesus didn't, that He was resurrected or that He wasn't, that He died for all sins or that following His life to the tee is what got you into Heaven. We can't be precisely sure of who authored what for most of the New Testament, all we know is that books of a similar message were canonized together over 350 years after Jesus' death to present the "truth" that the Canonizers wanted us to see.

Dan 8/18/09

"There is no "conspiracy" that they were lying. You need to read about the early days of Christianity. There were scriptures flying all over the place, saying Jesus died or that Jesus didn't, that He was resurrected or that He wasn't, that He died for all sins or that following His life to the tee is what got you into Heaven."

What scriptures were flying about in the early days of Christianity saying that Jesus didn't die or that He wasn't resurrected? Who wrote them? When were they written?

"We can't be precisely sure of who authored what for most of the New Testament,"

But we can follow the evidence, which favors the credited authorships. The Book of Hebrews is the only New Testament text without much evidence for its authorship. If a text is widely and unanimously credited to a specific author, without any compelling evidence to the contrary, then I accept the credited authorship as valid. I go where the evidence points.

"all we know is that books of a similar message were canonized together over 350 years after Jesus' death to present the "truth" that the Canonizers wanted us to see."

No, we know what Christians believed in the first century, that they believed that Jesus died and was resurrected. All of the New Testament was apparently written in the first century so it gives us great insight into what the early Christians believed. We also have strong evidence regarding who wrote what, except for Hebrews.

David 8/18/09

"What scriptures were flying about in the early days of Christianity saying that Jesus didn't die or that He wasn't resurrected? Who wrote them? When were they written?"

I don't have the books near me at the moment so I can't quote from them at the moment, but I know exactly which books you should read if you want information on this. Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities ; Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus ; Lost Scriptures of the early Christian groups ; Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels. This should get you started. Here's a quote from Lost Christianities to give you a taste:

"What if Marcion's canon-which consisted only of Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity's canon? What if the Ebionites-who believed Jesus was completely human and not divine-had ruled the day as the Orthodox Christian party? What if various early Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Secret Gospel of Mark, had been allowed into the canonical New Testament? Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture), a professor of religion at UNC Chapel Hill, offers answers to these and other questions in this book, which rehearses the now-familiar story of the tremendous diversity of early Christianity and its eventual suppression by a powerful "proto-orthodox" faction. The proto-orthodox Christians won out over many other groups, and bequeathed to us the four Gospels, a church hierarchy, a set of practices and beliefs, and doctrines such as the Trinity. Ehrman eloquently characterizes some of the movements and Scriptures that were lost, such as the Ebionites and the Secret Gospel of Mark, as he outlines the many strands of Christianity that competed for attention in the second and third centuries. He issues an important reminder that there was no such thing as a monolithic Christian orthodoxy before the fourth century. While Ehrman sometimes raises interesting questions (e.g., are Paul's writings sympathetic to women?), his book covers territory already well-explored by others (Gregory Riley, The River of God; Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief), generating few fresh or provocative insights."

"No, we know what Christians believed in the first century, that they believed that Jesus died and was resurrected. All of the New Testament was apparently written in the first century so it gives us great insight into what the early Christians believed. We also have strong evidence regarding who wrote what, except for Hebrews."

Read those books and get back to me on that ;)

Dan 8/18/09

"I don't have the books near me at the moment so I can't quote from them at the moment, but I know exactly which books you should read if you want information on this."

I'd rather know which scriptures you were talking about, which claimed that Jesus didn't die and wasn't resurrected, but thanks.

""What if Marcion's canon-which consisted only of Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity's canon? What if the Ebionites-who believed Jesus was completely human and not divine-had ruled the day as the Orthodox Christian party?"

Neither the gnostics, like Marcion, or the Ebionites were nearly popular or respected enough to have become in charge of Christianity, so these are actually rather ridiculous questions. Those who believed in Jesus obviously would have taken the words of the apostles (who were close to Jesus and witnessed His resurrection) over gnostics and ebionites (who popped up later, never having known Jesus or anyone He knew, from what we can tell). They're a little bit like those nutjobs who go around claiming that NASA faked the moon landing in a Hollywood studio. Yeah, they exist, but that doesn't mean that most people are every going to believe them over NASA.

David 8/19/09

DAN: "I don't have the books near me at the moment so I can't quote from them at the moment, but I know exactly which books you should read if you want information on this."

DAVID: "I'd rather know which scriptures you were talking about, which claimed that Jesus didn't die and wasn't resurrected, but thanks."

I cannot provide you direct links to these texts because they simply are not on the internet as far as I know. Many of the scriptures are not complete, and we can only read fragments of them, likely because the texts were destroyed by Orthodox Christianity. Here are some of the names of the specific books of you're inclined to search for them yourself: Gospel of the Ebonites, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, The Book of James (jesus' own brother). Go to this link and watch this video. It speaks on this subject briefly. If you want to know what scriptures I'm talking about, buy this book and find out.

"Neither the gnostics, like Marcion, or the Ebionites were nearly popular or respected enough to have become in charge of Christianity, so these are actually rather ridiculous questions. Those who believed in Jesus obviously would have taken the words of the apostles (who were close to Jesus and witnessed His resurrection) over gnostics and ebionites (who popped up later, never having known Jesus or anyone He knew, from what we can tell). They're a little bit like those nutjobs who go around claiming that NASA faked the moon landing in a Hollywood studio. Yeah, they exist, but that doesn't mean that most people are every going to believe them over NASA."

Your perception on the gnostic scriptures and earlier Christianity is either a result of your blind faith in the words of Christian apologetics, or your ignorance concerning modern historical criticism of early Christianity. Watch the video I linked. The Bible was canonized around Paul's "mystical visions" of Christ. The man had never even met Jesus. Read the books I linked. I'm not going to sit online arguing with you to read the books, though. It's your choice to reject other perspectives or not. Just don't act like you're trying hard to find the truth when you're not.

Dan 8/19/09

"I cannot provide you direct links to these texts because they simply are not on the internet as far as I know. Many of the scriptures are not complete, and we can only read fragments of them, likely because the texts were destroyed by Orthodox Christianity. Here are some of the names of the specific books of you're inclined to search for them yourself: Gospel of the Ebonites, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, The Book of James (jesus' own brother)."

They're all online, at least the portions that we have. You can find them at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

None of them suggest, as far as we know, that Jesus didn't die or wasn't resurrected. The Gospel of Hebrews specifically says that He was resurrected, and the other two don't deal with events that late in the Gospel stories themselves. The Gospel of James, for example, only deals with Jesus' birth and the surrounding events. The Gospel of the Ebionites ends with the preparation for the passover meal. So, no, we can't say that there were early Christian scriptures claiming that Jesus didn't die or wasn't resurrected.

"Your perception on the gnostic scriptures and earlier Christianity is either a result of your blind faith in the words of Christian apologetics, or your ignorance concerning modern historical criticism of early Christianity. Watch the video I linked."

I did. I find it hilarious that they're talking about all of the things that the Gospel of the Ebionites left out (virgin birth, resurrection, Jesus as God), but don't bother to mention that we have only fragments of this Gospel (take a look at this page - it gives the full text that we have: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites-panarion.html ). Considering that we have only a few quotations from what the original Gospel said, is it any wonder that so much stuff is missing? If I were to take any book and remove everything but a few fragments of the original text, then, yes, a lot of stuff will end up missing. No big surprise.

Scholars have noted that what we have of Ebionites seems to borrow heavily from Matthew, meaning whoever wrote it (probably not James, since it was written between 100-160 A.D. and James was killed by Porcius Festus, who was the procurator of Judea from 58 to 62 A.D., so James would have been dead at least 40 years or so) seems to have relied heavily on Matthew as a source, so it probably originally included most of the same details that Matthew did. Of what we have, there's no reason to believe that Christians would have had any problem with what the author wrote - in fact, it all seems pretty much in line with what the other Gospels were saying. So it's almost-total disappearance probably wasn't due to censorship from Christians, as the video suggests, but rather due to the fact that it was a later Gospel with an unknown author, and Christians preferred the earlier ones written by people who were closer to Jesus, which makes perfect sense.

David 8/19/09

"None of them suggest, as far as we know, that Jesus didn't die or wasn't resurrected. The Gospel of Hebrews specifically says that He was resurrected, and the other two don't deal with events that late in the Gospel stories themselves. The Gospel of James, for example, only deals with Jesus' birth and the surrounding events. The Gospel of the Ebionites ends with the preparation for the passover meal. So, no, we can't say that there were early Christian scriptures claiming that Jesus didn't die or wasn't resurrected."

As I said, Ehrman proves these things in his books as well as Elaine Pagels. If you think your armchair scholarship is good enough to get by, good for you, but I'm not going to proceed in a debate with you when there are people much more knowledgeable then me who have written books on the matter, which you are free to read. I have provided you the information and the links, the rest is up to you.

"I find it hilarious that they're talking about all of the things that the Gospel of the Ebionites left out (virgin birth, resurrection, Jesus as God), but don't bother to mention that we have only fragments of this Gospel (take a look at this page - it gives the full text that we have: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites-panarion.html ). Considering that we have only a few quotations from what the original Gospel said, is it any wonder that so much stuff is missing? If I were to take any book and remove everything but a few fragments of the original text, then, yes, a lot of stuff will end up missing. No big surprise.

Scholars have noted that what we have of Ebionites seems to borrow heavily from Matthew, meaning whoever wrote it (probably not James, since it was written between 100-160 A.D. and James was killed by Porcius Festus, who was the procurator of Judea from 58 to 62 A.D., so James would have been dead at least 40 years or so) seems to have relied heavily on Matthew as a source, so it probably originally included most of the same details that Matthew did. Of what we have, there's no reason to believe that Christians would have had any problem with what the author wrote - in fact, it all seems pretty much in line with what the other Gospels were saying. So it's almost-total disappearance probably wasn't due to censorship from Christians, as the video suggests, but rather due to the fact that it was a later Gospel with an unknown author, and Christians preferred the earlier ones written by people who were closer to Jesus, which makes perfect sense."

And I find it hilarious that you continue to try to debate me when you haven't read books by scholars on the subject. There are two sources of information for determining the philosophy of a gnostic sect. First, major philosophies of gnostic sects were written about by orthodox church fathers who opposed them. Second, we have fragments. Combined, this is how we know Ebionities didn't believe in Jesus' preexistence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, or physical resurrection. Read this book on it, that came out 36 years ago.

"Of what we have, there's no reason to believe that Christians would have had any problem with what the author wrote - in fact, it all seems pretty much in line with what the other Gospels were saying."

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote a book on heresy called Panarion in the 4th century, and listed Ebionites as one of the eight major heretical sects. The exact opposite of what you just said. At this point, I've come to the conclusion that you're talking out of your ass. Here you are, blathering on in ignorance trying to debate me, when all you'd need to do is read the books by Ehrman, who provides a copious amounts of sources for his information. I will not personally debate this further. Placing your burden of proof on me, instead of bothering to read books by very smart people on the matter, is ridiculous.

Dan 8/19/09

"As I said, Ehrman proves these things in his books as well as Elaine Pagels. If you think your armchair scholarship is good enough to get by, good for you, but I'm not going to proceed in a debate with you when there are people much more knowledgeable then me who have written books on the matter, which you are free to read. I have provided you the information and the links, the rest is up to you."

The problem is that the people who read these books end up woefully misinformed. You said earlier that "There were scriptures flying all over the place, saying Jesus died or that Jesus didn't, that He was resurrected or that He wasn't", and I think you somehow got that from reading those books, but you haven't been able to find me a single example of such a scripture claiming that Jesus didn't die or that He wasn't resurrected. My guess is that the books made such a claim, but couldn't provide any evidence to back it up, and you're just now realizing that they never backed up their claim. And rather than admit that you were duped, you're telling me to buy the books, so that you can make it look like it's my fault for not spending my own money going on a wild goose chase looking for evidence for a claim that you already know is false.

"And I find it hilarious that you continue to try to debate me when you haven't read books by scholars on the subject."

If these books tell me the same stuff you and your sources are telling me, that there were scriptures flying about in the early days of Christianity that said Jesus didn't die and wasn't resurrected, or that the Gospel of Ebionites clearly never mentioned the virgin birth, resurrection, etc., then these books can't be all that informative.

"First, major philosophies of gnostic sects were written about by orthodox church fathers who opposed them. Second, we have fragments. Combined, this is how we know Ebionities didn't believe in Jesus' preexistence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, or physical resurrection. "

I don't doubt that many early church fathers considered them heretical, but those early fathers certainly acknowledged that the Ebionites believes in Jesus' resurrection. The Ebionites disagreed with each other on the virgin birth, some believing in it and others not. They did, I agree, deny Jesus' pre-existence and divinity. They agreed that He died, but they didn't believe it led to atonement (so they believed in His death, but not His "atoning death"). But they certainly did believe in Jesus' resurrection. For example, Eusebius wrote that the Ebionites "celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour." (Source: http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/earlychristians/ebion.html#eusebius )

"Epiphanius of Salamis wrote a book on heresy called Panarion in the 4th century, and listed Ebionites as one of the eight major heretical sects. The exact opposite of what you just said."

Hardly. The Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew itself (though not Mark, Luke or John) as a source for their beliefs, so the idea that their own Gospel had parallels to Matthew's makes sense (they aren't going to use two sources that wildly contradict each other), and is also validated by comparing the fragments we have of the Gospel of Ebionites to the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, Irenaeus wrote that most of the heretical sects did use Gospels as sources. Per Irenaeus, "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord." (source: http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/earlychristians/ebion.html#ireneaus ). Their heresy was in the spin they gave the Gospels, twisting what they said so that Jesus was, to them, a mere man. But they didn't, as you claimed, deny that Jesus died or was resurrected, or reject what the Gospels said altogether. As I pointed out above, Eusebius, while considering them heretical, agreed that they celebrated Jesus' resurrection. And, of course, if He was resurrected, then He had to have died.

"I will not personally debate this further. Placing your burden of proof on me, instead of bothering to read books by very smart people on the matter, is ridiculous."

Yes, I'm putting the burden of proof on you, since you were the one who claimed that there were scriptures flying about saying Jesus didn't die and wasn't resurrected. I expect those making the claims to back them up with evidence, not to tell me to spend my own money buying books to go find the evidence for myself. I go through this kind of thing a lot, where people make claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and then tell me to go on a wild goose chase spending my own money looking for the evidence that they refuse to provide. If you have evidence to support your claim, provide it. If you don't, admit it.

David 8/19/09