The Resurrection of Jesus - Fact or Fable?

[MsMommaRose]

The Roman Catholics believe the host (bread) is actually the literal body of Jesus and the wine is the actual blood of Jesus.  It is a really sick proposition if you think about it, but I know that is what is actually what they are supposed to believe. 

I remember asking the nuns and priests about these things.  But where is heaven?  How far up in space is heaven?  If Jesus and Mary went to heaven do they need air to breathe?  Do they eat?  Your local Roman Catholic school turns out more atheists than little Catholics.

[brainsick]

Excellent job on the comparisons between the golden tablets and resurrection. You really prompted doubt in me whether the resurrection is factual or not. Good work! Now if I could only get this video translated into Spanish...

[gobblox]

That was a very good critical review with rational explanations.  I will have to use some of those ideas in the future.  :3

[rchuso]

The original Gnostic version had no physical manifestation of the person Jesus, and hence no birth or death narratives. These were added after the time of Paul (the reason Paul never mentions a physical Jesus). This is the reason the different stories contradict so badly. Physical resurrection was not part of the *original* Gnostic Redemption message.

Of course, by the 130s this view had given way to the Gnostic Redeemer physically walking the planet, complete with birth and death narratives.

[bonnieuk]

Good video. I did hear somewhere that some of those Joseph Smith witnesses did in fact recant their original claims about the golden plates, but even if that were so, as stated in the video, the Mormon story still has more credibility in terms of actual historicity and first hand witnesses.

[chucks]

Very good video! Regrettably, theist don't do ‘valid’ logic or evidence!

[dougzembiec]

1 Corinthians 15 vs 3 to 9 The part about Paul claiming 500 witnesses to the resurrection. We have no way of knowing but I would guess that that is an interpolation by a later scribe. The reason I say that is because Paul never knew Jesus before his road to Damascus experience. Paul was writing to a church which knew that. Paul mentioning the appearance of Jesus so matter of factly to the church in Corinth is evidence of a fabrication. Imagine their reaction on reading that verse. They probably thought "who the heck are the 500". It's an exaggeration created by Paul to gain credibility for himself as being a reliable witness

[LogosTheos]

Your 1st requirement is problematic since the existence of Jesus is uncontroversial among New Testament and Classical historians. The only known academics who deny this are fringe scholars like Robert Price and the unemployed ancient historian Richard Carrier. Other than that Jesus' existence is well established in academia. It is better for you to concede number 1.

[bryfryable]

You aren't getting the picture. If a Christian were to prove that the resurrection occurred, that proves that a God exists whether you can demonstrate a God through science or not. Why? a supernatural occurrence shows there is a supernatural that exists. This means that even if science can't detect the God to demonstrate its existence, the supernatural occurrence of Jesus would have still occurred concluding that a God exist but is not detectable to science.