Is there facts that Jesus arose from the dead?

Answer 1

What do you mean scientific evidence? It's in The Bible that Jesus Christ existed if that's what you want for proof.

If by scientific evidence one includes all the available evidence, which is also regarded as valid evidence for any other ancient personage then there is plenty of actual evidence both inside and outside the Bible. Denial of the existence of such evidence does not make it go away, nor diminish its actuality.

Sure, there's mountains of evidence for the historical life of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. (Interestingly enough, no one ever seems to have denied the historicity of Jesus until around the 18th or 19th centuries.) In particular, there were a number of writers in ancient Rome and Israel, who lived shortly after the time of Jesus, who wrote on the man-vs.-God controversy while it was first going on. So basically, in a nutshell, no, dispite the bible saying so, and it being man-made, there is none

Answer 2

AnswerThere is no historical or scientific evidence that the resurrection ever took place. Even the New Testament is somewhat inconsistent as to whether the resurrection appearances really happened.

From his own epistles, written before the gospel accounts, Paul seems to say that the risen Jesus did not show himself physically, but only through visions or dreams. He seems to have believed that when the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas, then the twelve, then to more than 500 (most of whom were still alive) then to James and all the apostles, that the appearances were all of the same nature as the appearance to himself, with no suggestion that any of those appearances somehow more real than the spiritual appearance he experienced.

The first gospel to be written, Mark's Gospel, originally ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they fled, telling no one - the "Long Ending" was added much later to provide the necessary resurrection appearances to 'prove' that Jesus had really returned from the dead. Merely having a young man, whether a messenger from God or perhaps a grave-robber, say that Jesus was risen does not suggest the standard of proof required by scientific inquiry, especially as the gospel is clear that they told no one.

The other gospels have various different and inconsistent accounts about the appearances of the risen Jesus. No historian or scientist could really accept such differing accounts as evidence for Jesus returning from the dead. It is a matter of faith, and faith alone, that Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion.

Answer 3

A Christian viewThere is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. But this is the kind of event for which there can never be absolute proof.

It is a fact that Jesus really died on the cross. We know this because, when the Roman stabbed his chest, "blood and water poured out". This can only happen if the person has been dead for some time; it never happens if the body is anywhere close to being alive. But this medical fact was not known until 1700 years after the event. When the eyewitness reported that he had seen this, he had no idea that he was reporting the proof of death. So theories that Jesus only fell into a coma from which he later revived can be ruled out.

It is a fact that his body disappeared. Nobody ever produced the body; instead, everyone accused everyone else of stealing it. The authorities couldn't have had the body because they accused the disciples. But if the disciples had really had it, sooner or later the secret would have leaked out. It is unlikely that random thieves (e.g., anatomy students or profiteers who wanted to sell the spices) could have reached such a high-profile corpse since it was guarded. Besides, it seems odd that the body disappeared while the shroud was left behind. Thieves have to work quickly, and ripping off a shroud (which would have been stuck on like plaster-of-Paris) would have wasted time for no good reason.

It is extremely unlikely that the disciples invented the resurrection-story out of nothing. People tell lies to get out of trouble, not in, and this story caused the disciples a great deal of touble. If the whole story had been a deliberate fraud, sooner or later, someone who knew the truth would have confessed to save his skin. But this never happened; the witnesses stuck to their story. It is safe to say that the disciples honestly believed Jesus had risen from the dead, even if they were mistaken.

The number of people who claimed to see the resurrected Jesus was quite large - over 500 individuals. A "dream" born of wishful thinking and vivid imagination would not have been strong and consistent enough to convince that many people that the resurrection was a real, objective event. Mass-hallucinations do not happen on that scale. So just what did the 500 witnesses see? It was certainly something more powerful than a trick of the light.

Here is a point that is not fact-based evidence, but is also worth considering from the logical point of view. If Jesus was nobody special, then probably no amount of evidence that he rose from the dead should be taken too seriously. If. That's a circular argument. On the other hand, if Jesus was really God, there is no real problem with the idea that he did rise from the dead. You would expect God to be more powerful than death. Another if, another circular argument. Perhaps the real question here is: Who is Jesus?
A Muslim view

It is mentioned in Quran; Muslims holy book that reflects real God words revelation to prophet Muhammad peace be upon him); that Jesus (peace be upon him) was neither crossed nor killed or died but God raised him up to the Heavens and that he will be back to our earth again. Refer to question below for details.

Answer 4

It would be unreasonable to expect scientific evidence for the existence of Jesus or of almost any other person of antiquity, if by scientific we mean that actual remains or other archaeological evidence has been found. The fact that no such evidence has been found should not be at all surprising.
If we broaden the definition of scientific to include all knowledge independent of the biblical tradition, then there is no evidence that Jesus existed. Here, we have to accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At most, this absence may indicate that the miracles that we ought to find recorded in contemporary records may not have happened as stated in the gospels.

So, there is no scientific evidence that Jesus existed, but on present knowledge it is thought likely that he did.