Lets admit it. there's only one question that really matters: Did Jesus Christ actually resurrect from the dead?

yeah
in the story he did

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JllnhlGyUw4

lmao. even the top level christcucks admit there's literally no evidence for jesus whatsoever

yes

I disagree. It's not an important question. Even if he did come back from the dead, all that proves is that some guy came back from the dead. It's not that big of a deal.

Except if the Resurrection is true then Christianity is correct and all other religions are wrong.

It doesn't prove that Christianity is completely correct. It just proves that they are correct about a guy resurrecting. It doesn't prove their metaphysical, moral, eschatological etc claims

imagine your brain being so descontructed as this

>man comes back from dead
>therefore everything these books say is true
That's just a really bad inference

He did come back. I know because it says so in the Conversations with God books. Am I an idiot for believing everything in those things? I think nawt, but you’re free to dispute me if you’ve read them.

I am a Christian, but divorcing myself from that, the Resurrection isn’t the most troubling question to me. It is why the God of gods chose a small tribe in the Middle East to reveal his universal doctrine for all humanity. And what happens to the millions of humans who lived and died without knowing who Jesus was, before and after his death and resurrection?

He did it because it’s cool. What part of “chosen peoples” is difficult to understand?

So God is basically a hipster

Considering Christianity is now known and practiced on every single continent on Earth, I'd say God chose a pretty good place to start it in. You're seriously underestimating the value of that part of the world for spreading information globally. It's one of the crossroads of civilization.

Not cool bro. Don’t hate.

Also I think you got me all wrong. Hipsters want attention. God bestows infinite glory on his chosen ones because it’s a lot better of a reality and story than the alternative.

So God is an autistic shut-in artist who lives in his own fantasy world

Incredible, not a single good comment in this entire fucking thread.

Do you not understand yet why it took until the 20th century for people to actually doubt the "existence" of God, the "truth" about Jesus, the "reality" of the resurrection? Because back when people didn't have autism in their brains, fluoride in their pineal glands, and transvestite porn on their computer, they were able to understand the ALLEGORICAL, ANAGOGICAL, POETIC, and RELIGIOUS truth behind religion. Whether you can see Jesus Christ's Semitic DNA inside of the communion wafer is an idea so fucking stupid that it could only have been sputtered up by the reductionist illiterate Jewish-atheist retarded culture of the West beginning in the 20th century.

Christ's resurrection is a reification of the ethical, the poetic, the glorious, the heroic, and the didactic suspending the materialist-reductionist outlook of the philosophically illiterate and morally retarded world.

Yes, Christ resurrected. Yes, if you're too lazy to try to understand what that means you are certainly going to hell.

Attached: C54I4506-2019-04-21-09-59-03.jpg (2400x1600, 646K)

>Did Jesus Christ actually resurrect from the dead?
yes

Attached: 1472700586876.png (1292x8757, 3.91M)

Yes

I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in God but he has risen.

I'm truly agnostic at this point.

Atheists are truly despicable and the father of lies will get you soon enough after you've served him well.

>i-it w-was an allegory a-all along
kek I love watching you retards retreat to these positions after getting btfo for the last few centuries

You’re exaggerating. He’s exaggerating, right?

this is just embarrassing.

as is this

>Christ's resurrection is a reification of the ethical, the poetic, the glorious, the heroic, and the didactic suspending the materialist-reductionist outlook of the philosophically illiterate and morally retarded world.
That's just an indirect way of saying the factual nature of his resurrection is untrue, or irrelevant. You're saying that the only thing that matters is the instrumental value of his resurrection insofar as it influences art, civilization, and culture, but that the actual fact of the resurrection, the existence of an afterlife, and other such things don't really matter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory_of_atonement

postbarthian.com/2013/01/11/the-allegorical-interpretation-of-creation-by-the-early-church-fathers/

>For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, BY THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CASE, to an examination of the INNER MEANING. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians and Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

Attached: C54I4457-2019-04-21-09-52-18.jpg (2400x1600, 636K)

see >That's just an indirect way of saying the factual nature of his resurrection is
No it's not, child. It's saying that Logos precedes the world. It all happened, in a reality above that of reality under a microscope. It happened more than anything else happened. Not only was Christ resurrected, but he descended into Hades and defeated Death Itself, so that all who may believe in Him are granted Eternal Life.

Repent. The Kingdom of God is at hand.

There are, to be sure, other things also quite as foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a crucified God wisdom. But Marcion will apply the knife to this doctrine also, and even with greater reason. For which is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? That He should bear the flesh, or the cross? Be circumcised, or be crucified? Be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of wisdom! You will show more of that if you refuse to believe this also. But, after all, you will not be wise unless you become a fool to the world, by believing the foolish things of God. Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them? We have said above that He might possibly have undergone the unreal mockeries of an imaginary birth and infancy. But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul determine to know nothing among us but Jesus and Him crucified; 1 Corinthians 2:2 falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom. O you most infamous of men, who acquits of all guilt the murderers of God! For nothing did Christ suffer from them, if He really suffered nothing at all. Spare the whole world's one only hope, you who are destroying the indispensable dishonour of our faith. Whatsoever is unworthy of God, is of gain to me. I am safe, if I am not ashamed of my Lord. Whosoever, says He, shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed. Other matters for shame find I none which can prove me to be shameless in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible

Aren’t you marking your division at the wrong point? Less people question symbolism in Communion than the Resurrection of Christ. Even atheists can agree in the power of ritual for a healthy society. Less agreeable is following Christ as his disciple and conquering death in his Name as did the martyrs.

Who is Tacitus, Josephus, and Paul the Apostle?

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus, author of the Annals , the Chronicles of Rome between AD 14–68 wrtites that Jesus actually existed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
Annales 15,44
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15
"Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Attached: Tacitus.jpg (200x251, 12K)

I honestly can't determine if this is a troll or not.

It's not a troll. Explain to me how that is in any way a reasonable inference.

technically your a gay autistic fag
>I.. I do everuthing from inference

Ok, I'll rephrase it for you without using the word "inference" since it triggers you:
Why should I believe everything a guy says is true just because he pulls a magic trick in front of me? Do magicians always tell the truth? Are magicians never wrong about anything?

the more important question is immaculate conception imo

Yeah, it's documented in multiple historical sources.

That Mary was made without sin?

Quick proof of existence of God:

1. If God is not real, then everything is permitted.(Dostoyevski)
2. Clearly not everything is permitted - if you rape the queen of England, you will go to jail for a long long time.
3. Hence God is real.

how things actually work:
>if god is real, everything is permitted (in service of god)
>proceed to have centuries of crusades, inquisitions, supression of knowledge, and terrorism in name of deity
>otherwise good men commit monstrous evil for the sake of their faith
wow, thanks theists for saving us from those no good nihilists!!

braisee Dostorvskii and daddy Kiekrregard

Of course he did

I rambled on Yea Forums a lot about Christ yesterday so I'm not going to do it with the same fervour tonight.

My current view on Christ is that all of mankind is united in our ability to comprehend his word. Those who reject his word reject reason, rationality, logic, and truth, and it has been shown what incredible feats of engineering, art, architecture, is possible from an understanding of Christ.

The immaculate conception, the resurrection, the miracles Christ is said to have done, these pale in comparison to the beauty of his teachings.

Mankind is unique in our ability to appreciate Christ. So far there are no aliens, and no 'missing links' in the world, no bigfoots or ape-men (as much as many think little of black people, they are still intelligent enough to comprehend Christ and be saved).

I think that we are able to conceive of Jesus having done these miracles, in the specific narrative framework as written in The New Testament, is a miracle in itself, and that through mankind the miracles were, are, and always will be true, so long as there are men on Earth.

My good sir, pardon me, but you seemed to have dropped your fedora. You were tipping it with such fervor, it's no wonder you didn't notice! Keep the faith in nothing, brother - We can't let the religious right win and oppress sodomites through their fairy tale theocracy, after all!

Burden of proof, etc.

Why do I even bother...

wonderful argument.

it's not 2015 anymore. fedora strawmen aren't going to cut it

>Did Jesus Christ actually resurrect from the dead?
Yes

>Those who reject his word reject reason, rationality, logic, and truth
Genuinely interested in why you think this. Many Christians here are overly evangelical (or shitposting) but I’m trying to sink my teeth into some strong arguments for faith. Please elaborate

youtube.com/watch?v=b7U9T9btzMg

I'll butcher it so maybe watch this where they discuss Logos, Greek for "Word" "Logic" "Reason". It's the idea that Christ and Logos are one in the same thing.

>tfw no one can refute this

Attached: FJE2-JgL_400x400.jpg (400x400, 24K)

Crucial for me is that Jesus himself claimed that if he was right, then all other beliefs must be wrong (John 14:6). So right there, you have Christianity separated from the rest by virtue of its own existence. It demands that it be either accepted wholly or rejected in totality. And all of it is wrapped up in the identity of Jesus Christ: was he God, or was he not?
This simple question makes Christianity the best belief to start with; if the answer is yes, then it's the one true religion and we don't need to waste our time with the others. If no, then we've opened the door for any of the others to be true.
In theory, this should make Christianity the easiest to write off. If it can be proved definitively that Jesus was not God as he claimed, then the belief is false and we can move on to considering the other 4199 religions at our leisure, fully confident that we've at least removed one from the pool of possibility. But if we can't prove definitively that Jesus wasn't God - and plenty of people have certainly tried - then we have to consider the possibility that he was. As C.S. Lewis said, he was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He left us no other options. And once we've reached this point, we're right where God wants us: if we're approaching the question of Christ with intellectual honesty, we can't help but learn more about him, thus opening our hearts to his message and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. And from there, it's only a matter of time before we know him personally and have our answer.

According to Christians who are true and honest and completely unbiased and would never fabricate an account of the life of a man whose existence is more or less the cornerstone of their entire religion. So yes without a doubt Jesus did resurrect.

Logos is the Word of God incarnate.
The Son of Man is the Word Incarnate.
The Son of Man is Logos Incarnate.

Yup, he was even kind enough to visit the Americans shortly afterwards to provide more eyewitnesses

Attached: book_of_mormon.jpg (944x993, 121K)

God can exist without atheism but atheism cannot exist without God
therefore existance of atheism proves God

NO, this is bullshit! Take it back! ffuuuckkkshidhksdhosdhasodihasd

Attached: 318271da980706f7a18a811c3456a77d.png (633x758, 16K)

God himself dying on a cross became an atheist. Only by death one becomes absolute.

You can use this same proof with objective morality :3

It’s elementary. That sphere of the world is really over with a simple logical deduction such as you’ve performed. And it really is well executed, anyone pretending to contradict that logic is fooling themselves.

I’d rather spend time on mathematics, or things that are actually challenging like logic or economics or certain kinds of philosophy :3

This is extremely interesting. They talk a lot about the history of the Catholic Church. Any books that discuss this? All this sounds so foreign to me but I’d like to get some kind of grasp. What have you read that’s influenced your faith significantly?

most brainlet post itt, which is quite the accomplishment

>Because if hair doesn't exist baldness doesn't exist

Well I started reading Genesis and got bored, so I skipped to The New Testament. Honestly my interest in The Bible only happens when Christ is introduced. It's incredible.

But a book that really gives context for me in figuring out Logos, is "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" by E Michael Jones. He makes a case that "Jews" (quotation marks is important here) who rejected Christ are now and forever embodied with a revolutionary spirit which means they'll instigate trouble and revolution, subvert cultures, basically affirming the reason why everybody knows the "Jews" are fucked up. The Talmud is just one big rejection of Christ, because that is how "Jews" identify themselves post-Christ.

Then you have Jews, without quotations, these are Jews who are ethnically Jewish, but accept Christ, and thus overcome their revolutionary spirit (though the culture of the "Jews" is oppressive for all Jews).

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Accept Christ: The wonders of Christian civilisation and culture.

Reject Christ: Become a 'people' who only know how to subvert and destroy, and find loopholes, and have a victim complex, etc, etc.

>jesus says how he will die and how he will resurrect bc he is god
>he does
>you should probably listen and obey
>matt 16,18 and john 21
Qed you must to the church of rome

again, just because a person comes back from the dead does not mean that everything they say is true or accurate.

When they say it would happen in the way it did and fulfills a bunch of prophecies i think you should probably listen

Why? If someone has the gift of prophecy they could use it to manipulate you. I.e. they could impress you by predicting the future and then once they have gained your trust they could fill your head with lies or nonsense. Why would you trust someone with superpowers like telling the future and rising from the dead? You think they care about weak peons like you and me?

Attached: almanac.jpg (620x400, 63K)

civilization is only 50k years old respectfully, whats to out rule that all science we studied proved that someone couldn't resurrect from the dead, it doesn't seem that illogical, maybe for a human but still

why?

the only question that matters is will i ever get a qt gf?

The bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

because the shroud of turin is obviously fake and that trainwreck of autism trying to justify it is an outright assault on any intelligent thought

the other comment is just the hollow dostoevskian/peterson strawman of 'all atheists = demon nihilists'

We have fucked all evidence for Spartacus but that doesn't stop people believing he existed

You didn't provide any plausible argument against it.

The more doubt is cast upon the resurrection, more necessary it is...science reveals a devastating truth of death and meaninglessness which no philosophy can salvage. Much like Kierkegaard's forlorn unrequited lover, we must believe in it because being a man of infinite resignation is far more unbearable in light of neuroscience, ect. To die or to believe, there's no other solution

So if it's all just allegorical, anagogical, and poetic, can I pick any fictional realm I like and make it my literal religion? Avatar the Last Airbender, Star Wars, Batman - anything the above qualities can be found in are the fair grounds for a theology to be built on, right? Also if it's not actually literal, and merely those figurative attributes, why do virtually no Christians beside yourself advocate for such a position? Also good to know that I don't have to follow Christianity if it has no literal truth to itself - Hell and all those tactics involving fearmongering are of course false, and irrelevant to me.

So you're admitting that doesn't cut it?

Total non-sequitor. If Buddha could truly see his past-lives, it doesn't make the rest of his doctrine true, or himself infallible. Clearly, you as a Christian would have to believe this, since you don't believe the Buddha's doctrine to be valid. And yet, Buddha may well have had the supernatural abilities said of him. You certainly couldn't disprove it, though I'm sure you wish they weren't true of him. But they don't make his whole doctrine true, and the same applies to Christ.

>If God is real, everything is permitted (in service of God)
Excellent, user. Very well-said.

it doesn't actually matter, because people will believe it anyway.

>thanks theists for saving us from those no good nihilists!
abortion has killed more than all wars combined

Yes.

Muslim societies never started to doubt the claims of Islam until the last century either. Coincidence?

serene jones pls go. your sjw reframing of gospel has no power here.

yes the resurrection happened. recite the apostle's creed.

Attached: spurdocatholic.jpg (1280x1280, 83K)

Of course. The Bible says so.

its a matter of faith. if there would be any evidence, it wouldnt be called faith anymore