N
neophyte
Guest
What makes you think that the claims of Christianity are a crazy story? The fact that there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of them?
Just the facts, ma’am.
- Status
Just the facts, ma’am.
U
utunumsint
Guest
Right. Sorry about that. I misunderstood the tone of some of your posts.
I agree that the resurrection is not something open to historical commentary in that it is supernatural. And by definition, something that is supernatural is outside of our normal experience of nature. History has a hard time absorbing such phenomenon. The more supernatural an event is, the more evidence is required before it can be classed as a historical event. All the more so for an event that calls for a radical change in a person’s self understanding and worldview.
It is up to each person to make an act of faith in the resurrection. Once that leap into faith has been made, the believer is free to trust in the word of God to its full extent.
Ut
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Gamaliel did not whip, persecute, or kill people who spoke up for Jesus. Gamaliel is known for his sympathetic treatment of early Christians. This even described in Acts.
Your slander of this man is damn lie and is shameful.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Should we just accept the truth of the claims of all the eyewitnessess to miracles from the traditions of Islam, Buddhism,etc?
How about the Mormons?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
They were not eyewitnesses. They were just passing along the claims of others. None were even alive during Jesus’ life. And none of them discuss the historicity of the resurrection.
I never claimed that Jesus was not a historical person.
Were is the direct testimony of these witnesses?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
That is not true. It is generally held in the scholarly community that none of the gospels were written by eyewittnesses.
See: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman
C
Cranch
Guest
Bart Ehrman: a former fundamentalist, now an agnostic who specialises in tearing down the Gospels.
U
utunumsint
Guest
The most that scholars say is that it is doubtful that John lived till 90 AD to write John’s gospel, but they do not know. They do not know if the author of Matthew was really the Tax collector mentioned in the Gospels. They are sure that Luke wrote Luke. They are pretty sure that Mark wrote Mark.
However, even if these accounts are not from eye witnesses, the traditions they describe are certainly from eye witnesses. There is no reason not to think that their accounts are not legitimate, except for reasons of radical scepticism that taints their scholarship.
Ut
However, even if these accounts are not from eye witnesses, the traditions they describe are certainly from eye witnesses. There is no reason not to think that their accounts are not legitimate, except for reasons of radical scepticism that taints their scholarship.
Ut
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
It is doubtful that an eyewitness was the author of Matthew. Why would an eyewitness need to use Mark as a source?
Cite? And even if Luke did write it (which is possible) he was not an eyewitness. He was a disciple of Paul.
Cite? And again Mark was not an eyewitness. He was a disciple of Peter.
Do you take the same non-sceptical view toward the claims of other witnesses.
J
jmcrae
Guest
For myself, I generally tend to believe that people are speaking the truth as they understand it.
If I think that someone is lying to me, I usually have a pretty good reason for thinking so - their statement doesn’t line up with my experiences of similiar situations, plus their account of what happened doesn’t line up with the account given by trustworthy others, and they are the only person making that particular claim, etc., but I never begin by assuming people are lying unless I have a good reason to suspect that they might be lying, based on the above criteria.
That a witness might be deceived, either by wishful thinking or by others, is a possibility that always has to be ruled out.
The sanest, most rational explanation is not always the truth - I do know that, and I also know that the person who seems the most believable can in fact be the one who is lying - the best way to get away with a lie is to tell a different truth, and then say as little as possible.
The disciples didn’t do that, though - they all said the same insane-sounding thing (the witnesses are all telling the same story), expecting to be believed - and they kept telling it over and over again - and yet they were sane enough to write the New Testament, which is still the greatest literature the world has ever seen - insane people cannot write great literature.
Good liars can, but good liars tell believable stories. They don’t talk about God becoming a man, and they don’t talk about people rising from the dead.
N
Nick
Guest
Please show me some evidence that the alleged miracles performed by Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and Buddha were witnessed and verified by reliable eye witnesses as were the miracles of Jesus.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Where is this evidence for the claims about Jesus? Where is the direct eyewitness testimony for the claims about Jesus? How can it be verified?
J
jmcrae
Guest
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
None of the New Testament was written by an eyewtiness to Jesus during his life.
What specific historical evidence can you present?
J
jmcrae
Guest
John was an eyewitness - he wrote three of the New Testament letters, one of the Gospels, and the Book of Revelation.
Matthew was also an eyewitness - he wrote at least the outline of the Gospel of Matthew, and if he had help finishing it, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t present his viewpoint. (When working as a secretary, I often wrote letters and essays in the name of my boss, in order to convey his viewpoint.)
The other New Testament writers were in contact with eyewitnesses, and reported what they were told.
The archaeological evidence of the Catacombs shows that the Christian community was continuously active from the early to mid first century, right around the time of Christ’s death and resurrection as recorded in the Gospels.
Relics of the Christian Saints also date back far enough to be the real thing - and even if they are fake, they show that someone thought these people were Christian Saints (or thought that other people thought so) in the appropriate time periods - mid to late first century.
There is also all sorts of anecdotal evidence in the writings of the Romans to show that there was an active Christian community at that time, and that they were being martyred for their beliefs.
Communities and ideas don’t spring up from nowhere. If the Jesus story is not true, then where did they come from - and why did they die for beliefs that they did not actually adhere to, if they were faking or lying about the Jesus story?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
All that shows is that Christianity existed. How doubts this? It does not show the claims about Jesus are true.
If that is all it takes to religious claims true then almost all religions would be true even though they have mutually exclusive beliefs.
Can you presetn actual historical evidence that Jesus was God and did rise from the dead not just that some people believed those things?
J
jmcrae
Guest
No. Is there any evidence that anything at all has ever happened in history, other than the evidence that a lot of people saw it happen and reported it?
I believe it because they had no reason to make up the story, and nothing to gain by spreading it around, if it wasn’t really true.
J
jmcrae
Guest
How so? Most religions aren’t based on first-hand eyewitness testomony.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Very few scholars believe that these works come from John the Apostle. Also, if the author of the Gospel of John and Revelation was the same man, why is the Greek so different between the two works?
If the author of Matthew was an eyewitness why would be need to use other sources?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Joseph Smith gave first hand testimony. The Qur’an was is one level away from eyewitness testimony.
- Status