Resurrection of Jesus Christ

"There was no question that Jesus died. He would have had to survive a scourging, a punishment that was so brutal, victims did not always survive, a crucifixion, a punishment nobody survived because it was intended to kill and was brutally efficient, and survive a spear through the rib and to the heart, a punishment that was intended to make sure that the victim died."There is no evidence that he died from the Crucifixion itself. There is no evidence that his heart was directly punctured with a spear either. Who is to say that Jesus of Nazareth didn't lose consciousness for a short period of time due to excruciating pain[1]? Or perhaps how can we account the fact that Jesus of Nazareth didn't fall into a coma for a longer period of time[2]? The concept of a coma as diagnosed is strictly a modern phenomena. Meaning that people in the past were buried while they were in a vegetative state. They could not of woken up from their vegetative state and lived if they were buried. However, Jesus of Nazareth was not buried. [1]http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[2]http://www.ninds.nih.gov..."Even if he survived all that, when he woke up from his grave, he would have had to relocate his shoulder and maybe his elbows back into place, stand up on feet that were now most likely useless. He would have had to move a tombstone that weighed several hundred pounds, and then overpower several guards that were watching over his tomb."Jesus of Nazareth would not need to do this if his followers removed the his body from the tomb."John the disciple was at Jesus' crucifixion."There is no evidence that John the disciple wrote the book of John if your implying that[3]. To claim that it was a firsthand account of the Crucifixion would be a mere assumption not a fact.[3]http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org..."Also, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also at his crucifixion, and she is where the gospel writer Luke got most of his information"Luke did not receive his information directly from the Mary the mother of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke is claimed to have been written about 62 AD[4]. Jesus' mother would of most likely been dead by this point in time. Therefore there would be many errors in the Gospel of Luke.[4]http://carm.org..."The New Testament had a very little chance of having information fabricated and exaggerated."It would be in their nature to exaggerate. I would go so far as to say all great events in history are exaggerated because "perception is reality."If perception is reality the amount of facts are distorted due to the perception of those who perceive such events. "For Caesar's book, The Gallic Wars, the time span was 1,000 years, and the number of copies was 10. For Plato, the time span was 1,200 years, and the amount of existing manuscripts is 7. Now, however, for the New Testament, the time was 25 years and the number of copies is 24,000+. As far as fabrication and embellishment, there was a very little chance of that happening. Compared to other writings of this time, the New Testament is more reliable by far."That is a poor comparison. Neither Julius Caesar or Plato wrote a book claiming to be the son of god, or being god, or human beings being resurrected from the dead. The aura of mythology does not surround either of those books you mentioned. Neither would come into the same questioning as I am asking about the validity of the Gospels. One is a historical document about warfare with no supernatural events. The other is a philosophical author writing about his perception of the world that surrounds him and how one should function within it."As for making up the resurrection and other miracles that Jesus performed, it was completely illogical for the New Testament writers to do this. They knew that relating such impossible facts would get them killed. And it did! Every New Testament writer got martyred for their faith, with the exception of John, who was marooned on the island of Patmos by the Roman government. "To make it up would be to their advantage. Do human beings get attracted by the boring and the mundane or the exciting and the shocking? A simple rule in propaganda states a half-truth or lie must be stated boldly in order for it to be accepted by the masses of people. I will just quote a 20th century master propagandist Dr. Joseph Goebbels."the principle & which is quite true in itself & that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily" -Dr. Joseph Goebbels[5][5]http://www.calvin.edu...