God exists (Edited Title)

[NM505StKate]

What type of evidence are you willing to accept?

I’d argue for the historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and work back from there to His claims for being God.

Do you really require that? Or were you playing “devil’s advocate”?

What historical accounts are there of the resurrection? Please show me contemporary writings that speak of a man rising from the dead.

 

[LethalMouse]

This is not exactly correct.

We disagree with atheists that A god exists, and we disagree with polytheists that multiple gods exist.

However, if you want to compare Yahweh with Allah or Brahman, etc., then we are first going to need to discuss whether ONE single god created everything that exists or not.

After that, we’re just arguing over his name and attributes.

• 10000

If one knows anything of linguistics and the “telephone game” the semantics of what something is does not inherently make them two different things.

We recognize that Jewish and Christians worship the exact same God, but Christians say trinity, Jews say no.

Odin and Wodin are cobsidered two different pagan gods… errrrr really? It is linguistics and geography.

Now consider biblical history, at one point long long before Moses everyone knew of one God, then time, linguistics and intentional evil of man. Factor in demonic interjection.

Plus if Allah is YHWY, God is Dios, Deus, and a hundred other things, then when we go wayyy back to where historical records and communication were way worse, one could see how the absolute truth is skewed. And hence why God chose a group to carry said truth to clear up the distortions over time. Believing in the natural law God wrote on our hearts, one could easily be a follower of a distorted truth and still follow God’s will to good.

I have pondered how many pagan pantheons still have a central God, in there history despite any assistance from a lesser being the central was supposed to get final praise. These things would fail and the concept would become about the lesser being.

Like an agel helping you and you building said angel an alter and ignoring God. If this becomes prevelant, I imagine God would eventually re explain himself. “Yo dumb dumbs, Me God Above All. Stop forgetting that!”

Even the term god is used in interesting ways. God vs gods Big G little g. When describing any being non christian the term little g god can be used especially in works of fiction to present an general jist of the being… now in terms of a little g god, see the show Supernatural, where little g gods were weaker than christian not god beings. So linguistically terms that may have been used to describe God got mixed up with gods and became synonymous. Like if “spiritual being” were used for God most often and then used with angels,saints, demons etc… in a world without books, tvs, internet, perhaps some village would transmit the info to another and another in ways that eventually all the above were being considered equal “spiritual beings” rather than their individual states.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What historical accounts are there of the resurrection? Please show me contemporary writings that speak of a man rising from the dead.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1 Corinthians…and others.

You have heard of these?

 

[NM505StKate]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1 Corinthians…and others.

You have heard of these?

Let me rephrase the question. Give me non biblical contemporary historical examples. Like anything between 4 BCE and 30 CE.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let me rephrase the question. Give me non biblical contemporary historical examples. Like anything between 4 BCE and 30 CE.

Ah…and why do they have to be non-biblical?

We have this from a few years outside your range:

Josephus (AD 93-94)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

(Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

 

[NM505StKate]

Ah…and why do they have to be non-biblical?

Because the bible isn’t exactly a historical book. You are using a faith based book to prove the faith of which the book is based on. It would be like me using the Book of Mormon to prove that Jesus visited the Americas before they were discovered.

EDIT: 60 years is not a few years after. That is nearly a generation apart. Also the line that states “He was the Messiah” didn’t appear in the earlier writings. So Josephus wrote about some guy named Yeshua who was claimed to have resurrected but it is just a claim and not proof.

 

[LethalMouse]

Because the bible isn’t exactly a historical book. You are using a faith based book to prove the faith of which the book is based on. It would be like me using the Book of Mormon to prove that Jesus visited the Americas before they were discovered.

I agree with this to a degree… but here is one issue:

The things that support the bible were included in it many years later. So prior to the actual creation of the bible these were independent writings. We have sources for these.

The book of mormon was written in the far future and the source of the writing that claims to be we don’t have because something something only the guy who wrote the book got to see.

Plus most dont like to use the questionable books of the bible that are not in it… but when one considers the writings that Christians reject as scripture but do give historical account to these events even if slightly different, we then can add in how many more writings? I think at least like 10 more accounts of jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because the bible isn’t exactly a historical book. You are using a faith based book to prove the faith of which the book is based on. It would be like me using the Book of Mormon to prove that Jesus visited the Americas before they were discovered.

The Book of Mormon cannot be verified by archaeology, etc. That is why Mormonism is struggling in the Internet age; these difficulties are no longer easy to keep secret.

Conversely, the historical reliability of the New Testament can be demonstrated rather easily, and this is a significant difference between Christianity and other religions.

However, we may also establish the historical reliability of the resurrection by means of the Five Minimal Facts Approach pioneered by Dr. Gary Habermas.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rossum]

I’d argue for the historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and work back from there to His claims for being God.

There are no non-Biblical accounts of Jesus resurrection. Similarly there are no non-Buddhist accounts of the Buddha’s miracles. If one is accepted then why not the other?

Every major religion has accounts of miracles. Why do you accept some and not others?

There are miracles described in the New Testament which are probably false. For example, at the time of Jesus’ death:

“the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

There are no known ancient accounts of an earthquake at that time, and certainly no contemporary accounts of the dead rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem. Do you not think that a zombie plague in Jerusalem would have been noticed by some of the Jews, Romans and other non-Christians present at the time?

It is far more likely that this is a pious story added after the event to make Jesus’ death appear more significant.

We also know that Jesus was taken down from the cross early, and Josephus tells us that people taken down early can survive:

I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

– The Life Of Flavius Josephus, 75

It is not possible to immediately accept the Gospel accounts without corroboration.

rossum

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are no non-Biblical accounts of Jesus resurrection. Similarly there are no non-Buddhist accounts of the Buddha’s miracles. If one is accepted then why not the other?

In post #25, I referenced Josephus’ remarks.

However, the reason that Buddha’s alleged miracles are rejected is NOT because they were recorded by Buddhists…they are rejected simply because the accounts themselves are not credible.

Your logic would say that we cannot believe anything about the Revolutionary War that is written by Americans because they’re biased. Or we shouldn’t believe that astronauts really landed on the moon because the television feed was controlled by NASA.

Every major religion has accounts of miracles. Why do you accept some and not others?

Because the strength of the claims is not equally compelling.

There are miracles described in the New Testament which are probably false. For example, at the time of Jesus’ death:

“the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

There are no known ancient accounts of an earthquake at that time, and certainly no contemporary accounts of the dead rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem. Do you not think that a zombie plague in Jerusalem would have been noticed by some of the Jews, Romans and other non-Christians present at the time?

It is far more likely that this is a pious story added after the event to make Jesus’ death appear more significant.

:nope:

Thallus (AD 52)

In his work of history, Julius Africanus mentions two earlier historians, Phlegon and Thallus, who in turn made references to Jesus. Thallus:

• Acknowledges that Jesus was a real person
• Confirms that Jesus was crucified
• Mentions an earthquake and darkness (possibly an eclipse) – both were said to have occurred at the time of Jesus’ death in the gospels.

We also know that Jesus was taken down from the cross early, and Josephus tells us that people taken down early can survive:

I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

– The Life Of Flavius Josephus, 75

It is not possible to immediately accept the Gospel accounts without corroboration.

rossum

You need to read your gospel accounts again. Where does any writing say that Jesus was “taken down early”? What does that even mean?

Jesus was taken down from the cross because he was dead. The soldiers double-checked that by running a lance into his chest.

They were experienced, professional executioners, and they knew what they were about.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I’ll be a tad snarky. This thread makes a positive statement of “God exists”. My response is Prove It Please.

I don’t do proof, I only point a little way along a path.

1. Two being more than one (which meant loner). Three being more than two (room for the Other Other - generosity and not navel gazing between the two of them).
2. I read in Tony Crilly that the only kinds of complex numbers that have been found possible are 2-dimensional, 4-dimensional and 8-dimensional ones. That means the number of dimensions was 2 (more than one) to the power of 1, 2 to the power of 2 and 2 to the power of 3 respectively. It’s like this is the only part of the “spectrum” of complex numbers that is “visible”. (More than one to the power of up to more than two, dimensions.)

(By complex numbers they seem to mean a system for making calculations with paired etc. numbers.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

We also know that Jesus was taken down from the cross early,

It is not possible to immediately accept the Gospel accounts without corroboration.

rossum

You’re presenting a variation of the Swoon Theory, so let’s deal with that (taken from my own study notes):

**V. Objections to the Resurrection.

A. Swoon Theory**

Jesus didn’t actually die; He revived and wandered out of the tomb on his own. (Swoon theory)

In 1835, David Strauss definitively refuted the Swoon Theory, and it has never been taken seriously since. Strauss argued that if a half-dead Jesus, beaten and bloody from head to toe, managed to stagger back to where the apostles were in hiding, he would not have inspired his disciples to proclaim that He was GOD - the Lord of Life - who had triumphed over the grave. After suffering all of the abuse, with all the catastrophic blood loss and trauma, he would have looked so pitiful that the disciples would never have hailed him as the victorious conqueror of death; they would have felt sorry for him and tried to nurse him back to health.

Do you honestly think that upon seeing him in this horrible condition the Apostles would have called Him, “Lord”? Or would they have called him a doctor?

So, it’s preposterous to think that if Jesus had appeared to them in that condition, his disciples would have been prompted to start a world-wide movement based on the hope that someday they, too, would have a resurrection body just like his.

Here are nine pieces of evidence that refute 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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are no non-Biblical accounts of Jesus resurrection. Similarly there are no non-Buddhist accounts of the Buddha’s miracles. If one is accepted then why not the other?

rossum

The evidence for the accuracy of Buddha’s teachings and his alleged miracles is so late and circumspect that it cannot be considered to be historically reliable:

Here is one account of the problems:

preventingtruthdecay.org/evidenceofbuddha.shtml

 

[LethalMouse]

There are no non-Biblical accounts of Jesus resurrection. Similarly there are no non-Buddhist accounts of the Buddha’s miracles. If one is accepted then why not the other?

Every major religion has accounts of miracles. Why do you accept some and not others?

There are miracles described in the New Testament which are probably false. For example, at the time of Jesus’ death:

“the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

There are no known ancient accounts of an earthquake at that time, and certainly no contemporary accounts of the dead rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem. Do you not think that a zombie plague in Jerusalem would have been noticed by some of the Jews, Romans and other non-Christians present at the time?

It is far more likely that this is a pious story added after the event to make Jesus’ death appear more significant.

We also know that Jesus was taken down from the cross early, and Josephus tells us that people taken down early can survive:

I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

– The Life Of Flavius Josephus, 75

It is not possible to immediately accept the Gospel accounts without corroboration.

rossum

But any writing that supports these inherentlybecomes them. If they found 200 new writings about Jesus that support them they would therefore be Chrsitian and lack validity as non-christian source. Note my earlier post about the many writings non biblical. But you would call them Christian writings since they include Christ… you see the circle?

 

[rossum]

In post #25, I referenced Josephus’ remarks.

Those remarks tell us what Christians believed at the time of writing. They are not historical. “Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet,” is correct, but does not prove that he was a prophet. It is merely a statement of Mormon belief.

Your logic would say that we cannot believe anything about the Revolutionary War that is written by Americans because they’re biased.

We also have French and British accounts. The British accounts are, if anything, biased the other way.

In his work of history, Julius Africanus mentions two earlier historians, Phlegon and Thallus, who in turn made references to Jesus. Thallus:

• Acknowledges that Jesus was a real person
• Confirms that Jesus was crucified
• Mentions an earthquake and darkness (possibly an eclipse) – both were said to have occurred at the time of Jesus’ death in the gospels.

I have no problem with Jesus being a real person, nor with Him being crucified. No account of zombies in Jerusalem though.

You need to read your gospel accounts again. Where does any writing say that Jesus was “taken down early”?

You need to read your gospel accounts again:

Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

– John 19:31

Jesus was taken down early because of the Sabbath, which started at sunset. Other records show that it took two or three days to die when crucified.

Jesus was taken down from the cross because he was dead. The soldiers double-checked that by running a lance into his chest.

A soldier on the ground will thrust a lance at an upwards angle. Blood and water resulted. You can get blood by breaking the skin anywhere. Water is more difficult. However, on the left side of the chest, above the heart, is the Thoracic Duct of the lymphatic system, which enters the heart from above. If the lance hit the thoracic duct (“water”) then it probably missed the heart on its diagonal upward thrust. Blood and water and taken down from the cross early (before sunset). Serious wounds indeed, but not necessarily fatal. A coma can look like death.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The evidence for the accuracy of Buddha’s teachings and his alleged miracles is so late and circumspect that it cannot be considered to be historically reliable:

Here is one account of the problems:

preventingtruthdecay.org/evidenceofbuddha.shtml

1. Neither Jesus nor the Buddha wrote anything that survives. Why is this a problem for the Buddha but not for Jesus?
2. The Buddha is recorded in contemporary Jain scriptures, as is the Jain Mahavira in Buddhist scriptures. There are no contemporary records of Jesus outside Christian scriptures.
3. The earliest Buddhist texts were not written, but recorded orally. Their extremely repetitive style, with many numerical lists, shows this. This was common in India; writing was for commerce, not for sacred scripture. The Rig Veda was remembered orally for a lot longer then Buddhist scripture. The date of the first written text merely shows when the transmission changed from oral to written.

rossum

 

[LethalMouse]

Rossum?

 

[rossum]

But any writing that supports these inherentlybecomes them. If they found 200 new writings about Jesus that support them they would therefore be Chrsitian and lack validity as non-christian source. Note my earlier post about the many writings non biblical. But you would call them Christian writings since they include Christ… you see the circle?

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

 

[Randy_Carson]

Those remarks tell us what Christians believed at the time of writing. They are not historical. “Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet,” is correct, but does not prove that he was a prophet. It is merely a statement of Mormon belief.

Right. So VERY, VERY early, we have a non-biblical source reporting on the belief of Christians.

Do Buddhists have anything even remotely this close to the life and death of Siddhartha Gautama?

:nope:

The earliest accounts date from nearly 400 years after his death.

1 Corinthians 15 contains the oral tradition of the Apostles from as early as AD 35 That’s only two years after the resurrection. (Bart Ehrman, an agnostic with atheist leanings, says AD 34!).

We also have French and British accounts. The British accounts are, if anything, biased the other way.

Right. So, would you say that the American accounts are biased toward the awesome bravery and military prowess of the American army while the British accounts have it the other way round? And are historians trained to identify these biases while retaining the basic reporting?

I have no problem with Jesus being a real person, nor with Him being crucified. No account of zombies in Jerusalem though.

Right. Because there was no witchcraft involved.

You need to read your gospel accounts again:

Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

– John 19:31

Jesus was taken down early because of the Sabbath, which started at sunset. Other records show that it took two or three days to die when crucified.

A soldier on the ground will thrust a lance at an upwards angle. Blood and water resulted. You can get blood by breaking the skin anywhere. Water is more difficult. However, on the left side of the chest, above the heart, is the Thoracic Duct of the lymphatic system, which enters the heart from above. If the lance hit the thoracic duct (“water”) then it probably missed the heart on its diagonal upward thrust. Blood and water and taken down from the cross early (before sunset). Serious wounds indeed, but not necessarily fatal. A coma can look like death.

rossum

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.

Why?

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:

godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Neither Jesus nor the Buddha wrote anything that survives. Why is this a problem for the Buddha but not for Jesus?

It’s not.

1. The Buddha is recorded in contemporary Jain scriptures, as is the Jain Mahavira in Buddhist scriptures. There are no contemporary records of Jesus outside Christian scriptures.

And this is a problem exactly WHY???

Christians have multiple independent eyewitness accounts. Buddhists have legends that were not recorded until more than 400 years had passed.

Do historians view the historical reliability of these two situations equally? No.

1. The earliest Buddhist texts were not written, but recorded orally. Their extremely repetitive style, with many numerical lists, shows this. This was common in India; writing was for commerce, not for sacred scripture. The Rig Veda was remembered orally for a lot longer then Buddhist scripture. The date of the first written text merely shows when the transmission changed from oral to written.

rossum

So, after 400 years had passed, who did the writers confer with to be sure that the words they were recording were correct?



See, Christians (like Paul) wrote so soon after the resurrection that Paul was able to say, "Hey, if you don’t believe me, check with the eyewitnesses “most of whom are still alive.” (cf. 1 Co. 15:1-8)