What hard to deny proof would you show someone to convince them Jesus rose from the dead?

  • Thread starter Thread starter q54332
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

q54332

Guest
Are there any really good sources outside the bible that are hard to deny that prove that Jesus resurrected? I’m currently doing a light-hearted debate on this but I feel I’m not giving the best evidence to prove the Jesus rose from the dead. I know there are better stuff out there but I’m not good at finding them.
 
Last edited:
I’m currently reading Did Jesus Exist by Bart Ehrman. He’s an agnostic leaning towards atheism, but the subject of the book is about extra biblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Dr. Gary Habermas (spelling?) Has a pretty good video on YouTube about this very topic. Not specifically Catholic, but you could look there.
 
Last edited:
The Shroud of Turin contains sufficient scientific evidence to prove that not only did Jesus die as reported, but also that His corpse vanished from the inside of a sealed and guarded tomb. While that vanishing is not exactly the same as His physical reappearance, it is so closely related to that event that it ought to be taken as proof that the resurrection happened.
 
q54332 said:
I know there are better stuff out there but I’m not good at finding them.
Click to expand...
Better than the Bible? 😏
If your friend doesn’t believe the Bible, I don’t think you are going to make them believe anything else as “proof.”
 
I personally will never get in such debates with people, I feel they are unwinnable. They could reference Catalepsy or even the apt named Lazarus Syndrome and we have no medical evidence of what really occurred to refute them.

Instead I try focus on Christ’s teachings, that is what wins people over.
 
Debating people on this is really hard but I really want to try to maybe open someone up to God even if just a little, I want to plant the seed in them if you will. If I could be part of just saving one person by helping them find the truth even if it was just a tiny amount I would be really happy.
 
The gospels are in the Bible. The gospels are also practically universally understood as historical documents. The resurrection itself is a miracle. The person of Jesus is the most historically confirmed person of all antiquity. We have more evidence for Him, that is corroborated, not collaborated, within a short period of time after his death than of basically anyone else of that time. Since many of these documents went into the Bible, some folks discredit them. But the Bible isn’t a book that just appeared. The New Testament contains letters and documentation of things that were going on.

Luke opens his gospel by saying hey a lot of people have been writing about Jesus and there’s a lot of stuff circulating, but here is my account from what I’ve gathered. It was a faithful account, so it was put into the Bible when the Bible was made. At the same time, it is a historical document.

It’s a catch 22. They want a historical document that gives testament to the resurrection. You can show them the new testament. They will say, not the Bible! I want a source that doesn’t have all of that supernatural stuff! So I don’t know what they want. They want a historical document for a supernatural event, without giving them historical documents with any supernatural events in them.
 
Last edited:
whatistrue said:
Please don’t try to use the Shroud as any sort of proof of anything. It is nowhere near a settled issue no matter how much certain people keep claiming it is.
Click to expand...
It was a “settled issue” for Pope Pius XI who studied the evidence and history about the Shroud for years before unequivocally stating that its image was most certainly not the work of man.
 
The Second Coming.

Of course, that would be rather too late. Perhaps you could concentrate on the First Coming, using St. Patrick’s approach of how to “top” the many sacrifices to many gods. He preached a God who loved us so much He sacrificed Himself: the only Gift worthy of the only God worthy of it.
 
Personal opinion, even from a Pope, is still personal opinion, not scientific evidence.
 
Pope Pius XI based his opinion upon years of study of all the historical documents and scientific evidence that were available about the Shroud. He did not render his opinion lightly. Since his declaration, the scientific evidence for the Shroud’s validity has only increased. The 1988 carbon fourteen evidence has been debunked as indicating a date, and properly evaluated as indicating an event.

https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-First-Century-Christ/dp/9814669121
40.png
Contradictions involving the Shroud of Turin? Sacred Scripture
The decrees regarding the Holy Shroud extend over a long period. They are associated with the names of Paul II, Sixtus IV, Julius II, Leo X, Clement VII, Gregory XIII, Benedict XIV, and Leo XII. First comes the Bull of Paul II, raising the chapel of Chambery to the dignity of a collegiate church, and endowing it with many rights and privileges, simply because it contained the Holy Shroud. It more than offsets the Bull of Robert of Geneva (anti-pope) who gave a decision that was purely…
Click to expand...
 
No matter how often you repeat these claims, it does not make them any more correct.
 
I don’t know how much scientific evidence you or anyone could want. The fabric of the Shroud has been proven to be 2000 years old. Its image of a corpse is not a painting and cannot be reproduced by any known technique, modern or ancient. The corpse bears all of the wounds that are listed as having been inflicted on Jesus. The image contains radiology features, meaning that teeth and bones can be seen by any trained radiologist.
Most astounding of all is the photo-negativity of the image that was discovered in 1898. Just what more do you want?
 
You have no idea what I have read or haven’t. Welcome to the Ignore bucket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top