God exists (Edited Title)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Churchman25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right. Because there was no witchcraft involved. :rolleyes:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There were a lot of people name Yeshua around back then and there were also many apocalyptic cults around then as well. The only source of the events come some 30+ years after the supposed time. Even Josephus was only retelling the cult of Yeshua stories at the time yet no other at the supposed time said a thing. Not a single Roman made mention of a person feeding over 5000 people. Heck there are stories in the Gospels that tell of Roman soldiers speaking highly of Yeshua but none of this is recorded anywhere else. Having a historical Yeshua means someone was around with that name, it does not give weight to the stories written and compiled in a singular book that has been edited and reedited thousand of times.
I have read them many times, and you may be sure I’ll read them again. 😉
The soldiers broke the legs of the two other men to hasten their deaths before the Sabbath. Jesus’ legs were not broken (to fulfill a prophecy); instead, a lance was thrust into his side. Then, Jesus was taken down from the cross because he was already dead.
Jesus was beaten half to death by over-zealous troops during his scourging - not to mention that he had spent the night in the Garden of Gethsemane so stressed that he was sweating blood. He was possibly in shock before a single nail pierced his skin.
But you have put your finger on the “heart” of your problem…the “water” which flowed from Jesus’ side. John observed this phenomenon, but the people of his day did not have the medical knowledge to explain what he saw. Today, we do.
Pericardial fluid.
This article published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association should provide some interesting reading for you:
See the story makes it seem that this one guy was paraded around to his execution, let us use some common sense. This type of execution was common place so making a big deal over one person is a little much to swallow. Since none of the Gospels are eye witness accounts we don’t know if this man did sweat blood. A lot can be exaggerated to help give a person abilities they do not have.
 
There is no circle. Josephus, who was not Christian, mentioned Jesus and the beliefs of Jesus’ followers. While there are some later Christian additions to the text as we have it, the original text (see post #25 by Randy Carson) it is a non-Christian confirmation of the existence of Jesus and of the beliefs about Him by early Christians.

Tacitus, also a non-Christian, mentions early Christians and their beliefs.

rossum
There are at least 52 books on Christ that are not in the bible… all write about Christ. All would be deemed Christian I imagine… but how would any such writing not be Christian?
 
There are at least 52 books on Christ that are not in the bible… all write about Christ. All would be deemed Christian I imagine… but how would any such writing not be Christian?
What are the 52 books?
 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A logical error made by Carl Sagan. Extraordinary claims require compelling evidence…same as ordinary claims.
There were a lot of people name Yeshua around back then and there were also many apocalyptic cults around then as well. The only source of the events come some 30+ years after the supposed time.
Which is stunning in and of itself since we have nothing like this for other people of antiquity.

However, Paul provides very strong evidence for the resurrection claims of the original apostles. He claimed for himself the authority of an apostle, and this claim was supported by a number of Apostolic Fathers shortly after the completion of the New Testament—two of whom probably were themselves disciples of the apostles. Paul knew several of the apostles personally including Peter, James and John. He played a major role in the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49 (cf. Acts 15). As a result of Paul’s personal knowledge of the apostles, what he has to say about the beliefs of the other apostles is important.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes:

15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

There are two important phrases in this passage which must be highlighted. First, notice that Paul says clearly “that Christ died…that he was buried…that he was raised on the third day”. This is unquestionable evidence of the belief of the resurrection of Jesus. However, it is the second point that ties this belief directly to the Apostles: Paul writes, “For what I received, I passed on to you…”.

Paul tells us that what he is about to say is something that he himself had “received” from others. Who were they? And when did he receive it? Paul learned the details contained in 1 Co. 15:1-8 from the apostles themselves during his visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. Thus, Paul is telling us of the core belief of the apostles that Jesus rose from the dead.

At this point, the skeptic may object that this is using the Bible to prove the Bible. This objection will not stand. The minimal facts approach does not rely on the inspiration of scripture nor on the general reliability of the New Testament. Instead, the New Testament is viewed for what it is: an ancient volume of literature containing 27 separate books by multiple, independent authors written over a period of roughly 50 years. From this volume, only those facts were are accepted by a majority of scholars – including the skeptical ones – are taken into consideration. Paul is one of those independent sources, and he confirms that the apostles claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. If Paul did indeed receive this from the apostles during his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, then he may have heard the resurrection of Christ preached as early as five years after the resurrection took place. This leaves those skeptics who argue for the embellishment of the “legend” or “story” of Jesus with a very small window in which that embellishment could have taken place!
See the story makes it seem that this one guy was paraded around to his execution, let us use some common sense. This type of execution was common place so making a big deal over one person is a little much to swallow. Since none of the Gospels are eye witness accounts we don’t know if this man did sweat blood. A lot can be exaggerated to help give a person abilities they do not have.
ALL of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, and the important matter of “enemy attestation” adds to their credibility. The Jews themselves claimed that Jesus’ disciples stole the body.

IOW, they admit the tomb was empty!
 
Do Buddhists have anything even remotely this close to the life and death of Siddhartha Gautama?
Yes. The Buddha is mentioned in contemporary Jain scriptures, as is the Jain Mavavira in early Buddhist scriptures. Their lives overlapped, though they never met. Each met and talked to adherents of the other.
The earliest accounts date from nearly 400 years after his death.
Not exactly. The earliest accounts date from about 50 - 100 years after his death. They were oral accounts only (like the Hindu Vedas) and not written down until later. Your 400 year date is for the first transfer from oral transmission to written transmission. If you read the Pali Canon, it is very repetitive with many numerical lists. These are relics of the days when it was transmitted orally. Lists and repetition made the text easier to remember.

We have three major written versions: Sthaviravada, Sarvastivada and Sautrantika, which agree on essentials. We also have the Vinaya only of the Mahasangikas, which agrees with the other Vinayas.

rossum
 
Yes. The Buddha is mentioned in contemporary Jain scriptures, as is the Jain Mavavira in early Buddhist scriptures. Their lives overlapped, though they never met. Each met and talked to adherents of the other.

Not exactly. The earliest accounts date from about 50 - 100 years after his death. They were oral accounts only (like the Hindu Vedas) and not written down until later. Your 400 year date is for the first transfer from oral transmission to written transmission. If you read the Pali Canon, it is very repetitive with many numerical lists. These are relics of the days when it was transmitted orally. Lists and repetition made the text easier to remember.

We have three major written versions: Sthaviravada, Sarvastivada and Sautrantika, which agree on essentials. We also have the Vinaya only of the Mahasangikas, which agrees with the other Vinayas.

rossum
And while that may be of some comfort to you, the plain fact is that you cannot deny that the multiple accounts of Jesus were written by actual eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude) or by those who had an opportunity to hear and to question those who were eyewitnesses (Mark, Luke).

All of these works were completed less than seventy years after the death of Jesus (the latest being the works of John, an actual eyewitness). Many, however, were written very early and readers were encouraged to confirm the messages they contained by speaking with those who had seen Jesus and were still alive at the time the books were written.

Let me add that if we need to continue comparing and contrasting Christianity and Buddhism, we should request that a mod prune this thread and move it to the non-Catholic Religions forum. 👍
 
And while that may be of some comfort to you, the plain fact is that you cannot deny that the multiple accounts of Jesus were written by actual eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude) or by those who had an opportunity to hear and to question those who were eyewitnesses (Mark, Luke).
I have no problem with Jesus existing. None of the writers were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection. A coma/revival is a more likely explanation.

There are still no non-Gospel contemporary reports of the dead reviving in Jerusalem; something we would expect to be noticed if it really happened.

The NT writers were not eyewitnesses to everything that they wrote about, none were present at Jesus’ birth for example. For some events they are not eyewitnesses but hearsay witnesses.

rossum
 
I have no problem with Jesus existing.
:clapping:
None of the writers were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection.
Precision is required here. Do you mean that no one was present and witnessed the actual moment that His body returned to life?

Or do you mean that none of the gospel writers saw Jesus during his many post-resurrection appearances before ascending into heaven?

If the former, I agree. If the latter, you are simply wrong. Matthew and John saw Him alive after the resurrection while Mark and Luke interviewed those who did.
A coma/revival is a more likely explanation.
I dealt with this theory in post #32, and you have not interacted with that. Here it is again:

REFUTATION OF THE SWOON THEORY


  1. *]Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way, including bungling a crucifixion. It was never done.
    *]The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down before the sabbath (v. 31).
    *]John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35). This shows that Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Any medical expert can vouch for this.
    *]The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (Jn 19:38-42).
    *]The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even “doubting Thomas,” that Jesus was gloriously alive (Jn 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely struggled out of a swoon, badly in need of a doctor. A half-dead, staggering sick man who has just had a narrow escape is not worshiped fearlessly as divine lord and conquerer of death.
    *]How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse? Or by unarmed disciples? And if the disciples did it, they knowingly lied when they wrote the Gospels, and we are into the conspiracy theory which can be refuted separately.
    *]How could a swooning half-dead man have moved the great stone at the door of the tomb? Who moved the stone if not an angel? No one has ever answered that question. Neither the Jews nor the Romans would move it, for it was in both their interests to keep the tomb sealed: the Jews had the stone put there in the first place, and the Roman guards would be killed if they let the body “escape.” The story the Jewish authorities spread, that the guards fell asleep and the disciples stole the body (Mt 28:11-15), is unbelievable. Roman guards would not fall asleep on a job like that; if they did, they would lose their lives. And even if they did fall asleep, the crowd and the effort and the noise it would have taken to move an enormous boulder would have wakened them. Furthermore, we are again into the conspiracy theory, with all its unanswerable difficulties.
    *]If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a dead one. Why did it disappear? There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.
    *]Most simply, the swoon theory necessarily turns into the conspiracy theory or the hallucination theory, for the disciples testified that Jesus did not swoon but really died and really rose.
    There are still no non-Gospel contemporary reports of the dead reviving in Jerusalem; something we would expect to be noticed if it really happened.
    This is an argument from silence, rossum. Not your strongest material.
    The NT writers were not eyewitnesses to everything that they wrote about, none were present at Jesus’ birth for example. For some events they are not eyewitnesses but hearsay witnesses.

    rossum
    Agreed with some caveats. Let’s be really clear about this, okay? Luke tells us:

    Luke 1:1-4
    1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since** I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning**, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

    Two other passages confirm the eyewitness aspect of the gospels:

    2 Peter 1:16-17
    For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

    John 21:24-25
    **This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. **And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

    J. Warner Wallace has an excellent article on this here:

    4 Reasons We Should Accept the Gospels As Eyewitness Accounts
    coldcasechristianity.com/2016/4-reasons-we-should-accept-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-accounts/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top