Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[hortysir]

His Grace is sufficient evidence for me.

And, yes, I'll admit that it's based on faith,

My wife just spent the night in the hospital and had heart-cath this morning (all clear, btw), but the peace and serenity I get when I talk to my father, in prayer, is palpable.
It's so overwhelming I find it hard to believe that it's a hallucination.

In fact, after praying for my wife and experiencing that euphoria, I prayed for the non-believers that they could find the peace of heart that I had just experienced.

 

[jillian]

the bible says it is inerrant... therefore it is inerrant.

sure... that's "evidence".

why is it so difficult to admit that it's based on faith?

First, no one has claimed here that the Bible inerrant. We are talking about the Resurrection of Christ, not the Bible.

Second, even the Bible doesn't claim that it's inerrant.

Third, there is no need to admit that faith in the resurrection is based on faith because it's self explanitory. But Being based on faith doesnt mean there is no evidence for it whatsoever. And that's what we are talking about. Evidence.

so let me get this straight.. *your* bible doesn't say there was a resurrection? is that what i'm reading.

it's my understanding that there are some that absolutely believe the bible in inerrant and the literal truth.

as for "proof".. there is nothing that would be considered legitimate proof of a resurrection.... if you believe that based on your faith.. i have no issues with it. but, it seems as an outsider that the statement mary was supposed to have made about someone having "taken" the body, makes a lot more sense. iirc, it was peter who insisted that he had "risen".

i have no problem with your faith. it's the pretense that your faith is somehow provable that is the issue. And, frankly, I don't see a lot of justification for a belief in certain things that christians take as "fact", not because you are "wrong", per se, but because we all believe what we believe in is correct... or we wouldn't believe in it.

and that's why i find the proselytizing and insistance on there being "evidence" to substantiate one's faith to be kind of self-serving.

 

[Sky Dancer]

There is no proof of Jesus resurrection. There is very little "proof" of yogi's attaining rainbow body either.

If it's your faith, what difference does it make that it can't be proved?

 

[Dr Grump]

You really should learn the difference between evidence and proof.

The linked claimed evidence

The link provided evidence.

Your belief or doubt in the credibility of that evidence doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

You're wrong..

ev·i·dence
   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

No, I'm not. Evidence can include proof, but proof isn't the only evidence there can be.

There can be evidence that doesn't "prove" something but which indeed does tend to prove or disprove something.

The way people act can be evidence. Say a teenager does something wrong, if he acts in a way where he is covering his tracks or runs away, that would be evidence that he did something wrong. It wouldn't, however, be proof that he did soemthing wrong.

You really going to argue with me over the difference between proof and evidence?

My definition even agrees with you. However, evidence also goes towards proving somthing, right? There is no evidence at all that Jesus rose from the dead. You have 6th, 7th hand accounts at a stretch. That doesn't even met a cursory or far-fetched meaning of the term evidence....

There is no evidence that Jesus