Where is the historical evidence concerning this resurrection?

There were only two witnesses I believe. Anyone other than them, and the devout followers of Jesus of course, would believe that the body was simply taken by someone else. I would suppose that if Christianity is in-fact the truth, then it isn't meant for someone to look at the hard facts of history and believe. If that were the case, then nobody would need faith and a true love. God could just appear, communicate and make everything known to everyone. Then people would fear instead of love, which seems to be the point of creation of the universe under Christianity.

And remember there is a historical account of the world being attacked by aliens, and people fell into mass hysteria because of it. /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> History is extremely bias according to the writers. It has always been that way. If Jesus did rise and it was known by many in the region, then Rome would have black balled the event from history and so would the Jews, whether Rome made them or not. Jesus was a threat to the Rome Empire, because of the unrest that was caused in the area, and Jesus' influence was rapidly spreading already. Remember Jesus claimed to be King of Jews and many were starting to follow him. Jesus was also known to be defiant. Jesus, quite simply, was a clear and present danger. Not only for then, but for some time after.

This is why Christians were murdered and tortured. This does not mean that Christianity was proven, but simply that Jesus was a real threat before and after death and would be more than enough reason for Rome to strike something from history as per usual Roman procedure.

In conclusion, the absence of historical accounts from Rome and Israel does not mean the absence of the event itself.

You both are getting Christianity and the Catholic Church confused and assuming that they are same thing.

Also, dinosaurs do not disprove Genesis. I doubt that the generally illiterate masses of the Hebrew culture in the time period would easily grasp millions of years as opposed to days. More than likely the word "days" can be exchanged with the word "phases". Dinosaurs were not mentioned by name, but they also didn't exist when man was around. Only after man was "born" does Genesis talk about anything in detail. Anything before didn't matter did it? Why would man care about creatures that died long before? That defeats the whole point of the Genesis does it not?

Ironically, Jews, Christians, and Muslims are criticized for not being open minded towards atheists , however, atheists generally consider themselves "forward thinking" individuals and are closed minded to religions.

If dinosaurs (and everything that happened before the "Garden of Eden") don't disprove Genesis, they at least show that the Bible should not be interpreted word for word. Personally, I'm fine with religion, as long as it is open to interpretation. I don't care for absolutists of any stripe, be they Creationist zealots or militant Atheists, who have a lot more in common than they realize. If God did indeed create us, then he gave us brains for a reason. We should use them whenever possible.

Now that you mention it, Jews, Christians, and Muslims aren't exactly known for being open minded towards each other. As for the Atheists, wouldn't being open minded towards religion be the same as believing something that they just can't bring themselves to believe? I agree that Atheists shouldn't try to "shout down" religion any more than they should be condemned for being "unbelieving heathen infidels". It cuts both ways, which is why it would be nice if religion really was a personal thing that people kept to themselves. Ultimately, everybody has to believe what works for them, and last I checked, they call us individuals for a reason.

To be completely honest with you, I'm not completely sure what I believe, but I don't believe that the Bible, Q'uran, Torah, Book of Mormon, or any other religious document is the pure word of God unpolluted by human intervention. Aside from the differences between science and religious teachings, I just don't have enough faith in humankind to believe that those in charge wouldn't put their own spin on things. Maybe one day I'll have an epiphany and suddenly believe, but it certainly won't be just because everybody else does.

There were only two witnesses I believe. Anyone other than them, and the devout followers of Jesus of course, would believe that the body was simply taken by someone else. I would suppose that if Christianity is in-fact the truth, then it isn't meant for someone to look at the hard facts of history and believe. If that were the case, then nobody would need faith and a true love. God could just appear, communicate and make everything known to everyone. Then people would fear instead of love, which seems to be the point of creation of the universe under Christianity.

And remember there is a historical account of the world being attacked by aliens, and people fell into mass hysteria because of it. /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> History is extremely bias according to the writers. It has always been that way. If Jesus did rise and it was known by many in the region, then Rome would have black balled the event from history and so would the Jews, whether Rome made them or not. Jesus was a threat to the Rome Empire, because of the unrest that was caused in the area, and Jesus' influence was rapidly spreading already. Remember Jesus claimed to be King of Jews and many were starting to follow him. Jesus was also known to be defiant. Jesus, quite simply, was a clear and present danger. Not only for then, but for some time after.

This is why Christians were murdered and tortured. This does not mean that Christianity was proven, but simply that Jesus was a real threat before and after death and would be more than enough reason for Rome to strike something from history as per usual Roman procedure.

In conclusion, the absence of historical accounts from Rome and Israel does not mean the absence of the event itself.

You actually illustrate a very good point about history. Even in this day and age, unless something is captured on video, it is open to "spin-terpretation". Even video can be called into question unless multiple independent sources were taken (thanks to Hollywood). Case in point: Senator Larry Craig in that Minneapolis Airport restroom. The police officer says he was soliciting gay sex, while the senator claims that he was merely tapping his foot and a victim of circumstance. Two completely different accounts of the same event, from two people separated by a mere inch of hollow metal. That was only a year or two ago. You can only imagine how incomplete and inaccurate our accounts of what happened 2000 years ago are, especially when maybe one in a thousand was literate enough to even write their version down. That's one reason why it takes faith to believe, and faith as they say, varies by individual. We shouldn't be critical of each other over our varying degrees of faith. Unless we were there, how do we really know what happened? We either take it on faith, or we don't.

If dinosaurs (and everything that happened before the "Garden of Eden") don't disprove Genesis, they at least show that the Bible should not be interpreted word for word. Personally, I'm fine with religion, as long as it is open to interpretation. I don't care for absolutists of any stripe, be they Creationist zealots or militant Atheists, who have a lot more in common than they realize. If God did indeed create us, then he gave us brains for a reason. We should use them whenever possible.

Now that you mention it, Jews, Christians, and Muslims aren't exactly known for being open minded towards each other. As for the Atheists, wouldn't being open minded towards religion be the same as believing something that they just can't bring themselves to believe? I agree that Atheists shouldn't try to "shout down" religion any more than they should be condemned for being "unbelieving heathen infidels". It cuts both ways, which is why it would be nice if religion really was a personal thing that people kept to themselves. Ultimately, everybody has to believe what works for them, and last I checked, they call us individuals for a reason.

To be completely honest with you, I'm not completely sure what I believe, but I don't believe that the Bible, Q'uran, Torah, Book of Mormon, or any other religious document is the pure word of God unpolluted by human intervention. Aside from the differences between science and religious teachings, I just don't have enough faith in humankind to believe that those in charge wouldn't put their own spin on things. Maybe one day I'll have an epiphany and suddenly believe, but it certainly won't be just because everybody else does.

I agree. I don't know what I believe. I look for more of the historical aspect. I'm half jewish, half welsh, the jewish half I view as heritage, not religion. I was raised catholic. Laugh riot isn't it.

I got in trouble for questioning the priest, did not follow why the questions already had answers. Who is god? God is made man. I went to catholic school.

My catholic religion stopped when I moved out of home. I looked into Judaism. 20's thing, explore my roots. I went to conversion classes, but never converted.

I married someone who just happened to be jewish, he is not religious, but had formal instruction thru his childhood.

My beliefs, I have no idea and am not involved in any formal religion, but have nothing against religion.

I have gotten this far, I THINK there may be something bigger than all of us. Evil and good dwell in the hearts of mankind. Choose your path, the type of person you want to be.

I remain open to see what others think, within reason. Any of the books, I view as stories, handed down by man.