How do we know what we know?

[T1Catholic]

I have been challenged once again by an atheist co-worker. He said Christianity is as much a work of fiction as the Da Vinci Code is. He says we have no way of knowing if Jesus really lived. When I told him about the early Church Fathers and all the writings we have from them as records of the early Church he asked how do we know that what we have is from that era. So I need help in explaining how things were written down back then, where were they kept and do we have originals. Who did the dating on the documents? Thanks for your help…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

T1Catholic

I’d just cut to the chase.

Ask your atheist friend if he ever read the gospels and the epistles. If he says no, he doesn’t even know what he’s stalking about. If he says yes, ask him if his impression is that the gospel writers and Paul seem like the kind of fellows that go around telling a pack of lies. If he says yes, he still doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

He just doesn’t want to believe … and there’s the rub. No amount of talking is going to win him over. If anything, he will just get considerable satisfaction from trying to plant the seeds of doubt in your own faith. You can already see that, can’t you?

 

[ribozyme]

I have been challenged once again by an atheist co-worker. He said Christianity is as much a work of fiction as the Da Vinci Code is. He says we have no way of knowing if Jesus really lived. When I told him about the early Church Fathers and all the writings we have from them as records of the early Church he asked how do we know that what we have is from that era. So I need help in explaining how things were written down back then, where were they kept and do we have originals. Who did the dating on the documents? Thanks for your help…

From reading that testimony, his objections to Christianity are rather unsophisticated. I do think he is correct to say that there is no way of proving that Jesus’ historical existence, but the perponderence of evidence indicates that he exists.

Gilbert, do you remember when I used eternal inflation to cast doubt on the existence of the Christian God. Guess who answered that objection? It is a non-believer who gave some reasons to legitimately doubt it. All you could say is that it is “speculative”. I only pointed that out because I am able to be persuaded by the evidence. I also thought that remark about atheists not wanting to believe was false, at least, in my case.

 

[porkscratchings]

I have been challenged once again by an atheist co-worker. He said Christianity is as much a work of fiction as the Da Vinci Code is. He says we have no way of knowing if Jesus really lived. When I told him about the early Church Fathers and all the writings we have from them as records of the early Church he asked how do we know that what we have is from that era. So I need help in explaining how things were written down back then, where were they kept and do we have originals. Who did the dating on the documents? Thanks for your help…

Ur co-worker has a point. I don’t think using the Church Fathers is a good idea - ur mate would turn this around and say ’ well, they’re Christians, they would say Jesus really existed wouldn’t they’. I wouldn’t used the NT either - the NT did not exist when Jesus was alive and even the earliest parts of the NT were written no more than 70AD, long after jesus and most if not all of his disciples have died.

If u want to put up a good argument, use Roman writings dating from the period where Jesus and his disciples lived circa 30AD and 50AD.

 

[jimmy]

Ur co-worker has a point. I don’t think using the Church Fathers is a good idea - ur mate would turn this around and say ’ well, they’re Christians, they would say Jesus really existed wouldn’t they’. I wouldn’t used the NT either - the NT did not exist when Jesus was alive and even the earliest parts of the NT were written no more than 70AD, long after jesus and most if not all of his disciples have died.

If u want to put up a good argument, use Roman writings dating from the period where Jesus and his disciples lived circa 30AD and 50AD.

Actually 45 to 50 is the date of the earliest writings of the NT.

 

[jimmy]

I have been challenged once again by an atheist co-worker. He said Christianity is as much a work of fiction as the Da Vinci Code is. He says we have no way of knowing if Jesus really lived. When I told him about the early Church Fathers and all the writings we have from them as records of the early Church he asked how do we know that what we have is from that era. So I need help in explaining how things were written down back then, where were they kept and do we have originals. Who did the dating on the documents? Thanks for your help…

You also don’t know that Newton, Gallileo, or anyone else existed. The sceptical view is meaningless; it is simply a statement that we can’t prove anything 100%.

 

[rwoehmke]

Does he believe that Julius Caeser, Socrates, or Black Beard the Pirate existed? Or for that matter any one of the many people who receive passing note in our histories. Some of them are mentioned no more often than Jesus in history. Some folks are so stiff-necked they feel its a matter of pride to be sceptical.

 

[porkscratchings]

Actually 45 to 50 is the date of the earliest writings of the NT.

…if u r a christian. Secular dating gives the following:

Matthew - c. 80-100AD
Mark - c.late 60-early70 AD
Luke - c. 75-100 AD
John c.125 AD

Actually the letters to the churches was the earliest writings of the NT, around 60-70 AD.

 

[Tom]

Simply because I don’t believe the white house exists in Washington D.C. does not mean there is an empty lot at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Does he believe that Julius Caeser, Socrates, or Black Beard the Pirate existed? Or for that matter any one of the many people who receive passing note in our histories. Some of them are mentioned no more often than Jesus in history. Some folks are so stiff-necked they feel its a matter of pride to be sceptical.

The problem with the above argument is that nobody is claiming that Caesar, Socrates, or Black Beard the Pirate was born to a virgin, turned water to wine, walked on water, rose from the dead, is God, and hears our prayers.

The extavagant (and to me, clearly mythical) claims made by believers of Jesus demand a higher level of evidence, in my view, simply because of the sheer improbability of the claims. Such evidence does not exist.

Did a man named Jesus exist? I’m willing to accept that claim on the basis of ancient records. As for the rest? Well, that is a matter of faith, and cannot be proven.

 

[tdgesq]

The problem with the above argument is that nobody is claiming that Caesar, Socrates, or Black Beard the Pirate was born to a virgin, turned water to wine, walked on water, rose from the dead, is God, and hears our prayers. The extavagant (and to me, clearly mythical) claims made by believers of Jesus demand a higher level of evidence, in my view, simply because of the sheer improbability of the claims. Such evidence does not exist.

Only if you presuppose the impossibility of miracles. If miracles are possible, then it is not so far-fetched. Are miracles possible? I think only if God’s existence can be demonstrated. I contend that the evidence for God’s existence is far greater than the evidence against it. For someone who rejects God’s existence, there will never be enough evidence to substantiate miracles. Not even if a hundred thousand non-Christian’s claimed to witness the resurrection of Jesus.

Did a man named Jesus exist? I’m willing to accept that claim on the basis of ancient records. As for the rest? Well, that is a matter of faith, and cannot be proven.

Of course you are willing to accept it. There are whole college level classes that deal with the Bible as history. PBS has specials on every now and again about the history of the man Jesus. I have not seen any serious historian claim that Jesus never existed. As for the rest being a matter of faith that cannot be proven, what type and quantum of evidence do you require?

 

[ribozyme]

Of course you are willing to accept it. There are whole college level classes that deal with the Bible as history. PBS has specials on every now and again about the history of the man Jesus. I have not seen any serious historian claim that Jesus never existed. As for the rest being a matter of faith that cannot be proven, what type and quantum of evidence do you require?

Does Earl Doherty count as a serious historian?

 

[tdgesq]

Does Earl Doherty count as a serious historian?

I’ve never read his books. That being said, no he does not.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Not even if a hundred thousand non-Christian’s claimed to witness the resurrection of Jesus.

Read your bible. No one claimed to witness the resurrection of Jesus. And in the gospels the supposed “witnesses” to the risen Jesus numbered a mere handful.

As for the rest being a matter of faith that cannot be proven, what type and quantum of evidence do you require?

Are you saying that one can accept the story of Jesus without faith? That’s a remarkable theological development.

Like I said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Lots of people claim to have seen Bigfoot out here in the pacific northwest, some have even found supposed footprints of the elusive creature. Many people are true believers, some others are perpetrators of hoaxes, and yet many others would like something more substantial, like a body or a skeleton to prove the claims. It is an extraordinary claim that a huge primate lurks in the woods up here, and apart from some supposed eyewitnesses, some plaster casts, and grainy film footage, real extraordinary proof eludes us.

With Jesus, we have four books (that the Church approves) written from forty to seventy years after the events they describe; books written by anonymous believers with the clear intention to persuade and convince. It is not factual history; it is propaganda. And not even good propaganda at that, considering all the borrowing from pagan myths.

You ask what type of evidence I require - it matters not, since clearly nothing more exists that could be considered evidence.

 

[wjp984]

wasn’t there a written record of the existence of Jesus with something like Here lies James, the brother of Jesus (and by brother it means cousin) I don’t even think most athiest doubt the existence of a historical Jesus.

 

[Tom]

Read your bible. No one claimed to witness the resurrection of Jesus. And in the gospels the supposed “witnesses” to the risen Jesus numbered a mere handful.

I guess you have really large hands to say something like this?

Webpage Not Found

Catholic Bible Study Online, Douay-Rheims Version. Complete text, index, search, Bible verse, bible story, scripture, book, prophesy, christian ...

www.drbo.org

1 Corinthians 15: 3 For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.6 Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.

The fact that 10 out of the original 12 Apostles, plus Paul who was not an original but a convert who originally persecuted the Christians faced death for their testomony is strong evidence. The many martyrs who had seen the Lord are also a strong testament. Those who were martyred who had never seen Him, although compelling for their faith could have been deceived. The ones who were eye witnesses though, not so many would have accepted death to perpetuate a fraud of this nature. There are also historical accounts, not Christian, but Roman, that testify to some of His miracles.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have been challenged once again by an atheist co-worker. He said Christianity is as much a work of fiction as the Da Vinci Code is. He says we have no way of knowing if Jesus really lived. When I told him about the early Church Fathers and all the writings we have from them as records of the early Church he asked how do we know that what we have is from that era. So I need help in explaining how things were written down back then, where were they kept and do we have originals. Who did the dating on the documents? Thanks for your help…

your friend is quite right. how do we know any primary historic sources are valid, accurate, reliable, and actually originate from the sources claimed for them. The answer is provenance. How do we know the writings of Julius Caesar, the Romans, the Greeks, or for that matter, the Civil War, English kings or any of the documents and sources on which the study of history is based are reliable? I suggest your friend consult a historian or get a MA in history, which is basically the study of how to evaluate historical sources. There are criteria, and the gospels and writings of the Fathers do meet the criteria for primary source material if you apply the same standards you would to other sources dating from the same era.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem with the above argument is that nobody is claiming that Caesar, Socrates, or Black Beard the Pirate was born to a virgin, turned water to wine, walked on water, rose from the dead, is God, and hears our prayers.

The extavagant (and to me, clearly mythical) claims made by believers of Jesus demand a higher level of evidence, in my view, simply because of the sheer improbability of the claims. Such evidence does not exist.

Did a man named Jesus exist? I’m willing to accept that claim on the basis of ancient records. As for the rest? Well, that is a matter of faith, and cannot be proven.

I’m sure you’ve heard this before, so I don’t mean to insult your intelligence; however, the question bears repeating: would you willingly die for an idea that you knew was false?

All of the Apostles except John were martyred for what they claimed to be true about the dead man, Jesus. And for the first few hundred years, many more Christians willingly died for their faith rather than deny what they believed to be true. What they believed was these extravagant claims that you struggle with.

While dying for a good cause (a just war, while rescuing others from a fire, etc.) is understandable, dying for some ancient story about an obscure Jew from Palestine seems absurd when there were so many other politically acceptable Roman gods (notably the emperor himself) to choose from.

Since you appeal to the validity of history, I would encourage you to read what these folks wrote before going to their deaths for what they believed. Yeah, they WERE Christians, but yes, they died for what they wrote. By the way, there is little doubt that the book we have today IS an accurate copy of what they actually wrote, so the question is not whether the Bible is accurate, but only whether it is true.

Your point about faith is fair. As the book itself says, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the word of God.”

Check it out.

 

[tdgesq]

Read your bible. No one claimed to witness the resurrection of Jesus. And in the gospels the supposed “witnesses” to the risen Jesus numbered a mere handful.

Many claimed to witness the resurrected Jesus. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I meant precisely what I wrote. Let me quote it again for you in hope that this time you’ll actually read what it says and take up the issue: “For someone who rejects God’s existence, there will never be enough evidence to substantiate miracles. Not even if a hundred thousand non-Christian’s claimed to witness the resurrection of Jesus.”

Are you saying that one can accept the story of Jesus without faith? That’s a remarkable theological development.

I have no idea where you came up with this. An even more remarkable development would be to claim that Catholic theology requires faith and reason to be opposed to one another, instead of the exact opposite. Now who’s the one who hasn’t been doing their reading.

Like I said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Yes, that’s what you say. Then you assiduously avoid giving any standard of proof by which a miracle could be established. I suspect that’s because you’ve already rejected the possibility of miracles.

Lots of people claim to have seen Bigfoot out here in the pacific northwest, some have even found supposed footprints of the elusive creature. Many people are true believers, some others are perpetrators of hoaxes, and yet many others would like something more substantial, like a body or a skeleton to prove the claims.

The evidence that would be required to prove Bigfoot’s existence would not be the same type of evidence that could prove that miracles occurred. No matter how many bodies or skeletons were given to you, it wouldn’t convince you that a miracle had occurred. Not if you’ve already rejected the conditions for the possibility of miracles - namely the existence of God.

With Jesus, we have four books (that the Church approves) written from forty to seventy years after the events they describe; books written by anonymous believers with the clear intention to persuade and convince. It is not factual history; it is propaganda. And not even good propaganda at that, considering all the borrowing from pagan myths.

Anonymous believers like Paul I guess. Your last sentence doesn’t make sense. It is obviously very good “propaganda” considering the number of modern day Christians who believe in it.

You ask what type of evidence I require - it matters not, since clearly nothing more exists that could be considered evidence.

Look, why don’t you just come out with it and say that you don’t think miracles are possible. You act as if perhaps you might believe if just there were a few more credible witnesses out there to these miracles or some other such evidence. If that’s so, then say it. If not, then quit pretending like you are weighing the evidence when you’ve already concluded that miracles aren’t possible.

 

[mercygate]

your friend is quite right. how do we know any primary historic sources are valid, accurate, reliable, and actually originate from the sources claimed for them. The answer is provenance. How do we know the writings of Julius Caesar, the Romans, the Greeks, or for that matter, the Civil War, English kings or any of the documents and sources on which the study of history is based are reliable? I suggest your friend consult a historian or get a MA in history, which is basically the study of how to evaluate historical sources. There are criteria, and the gospels and writings of the Fathers do meet the criteria for primary source material if you apply the same standards you would to other sources dating from the same era.

Indeed. And the palaeaographic evidence for the New Testament as perhaps the strongest in the ancient world. That, combined with the history of the first 200 years of Christianity makes an airtight case for the early existence of Christianity, pretty much as we understand it today, and for the veracity of the texts.