Audodidact
That is your assumption that the church made up propaganda. Plus again, the mass persecution the church underwent, why would they make up propaganda and die for things they made up?
Circular argument much?
One thing at a time. So is there or is there not a single source other than the gospels and their derivatives for the supposed resurrection?
Also the church fathers did not observe Jesus rise from the dead, apparently you were not listening. The church fathers KNEW the apostolic witnesses WHO DID observe the resurrection.
The apostles were not witnesses. The church fathers heard about someone who knew someone who said that their father had told them that someone he knew saw it--is closer to the truth.
And the church fathers wrote that they died for Christs cause. They did not mention HOW they died, but that they died for Christs cause.
Let me get this: first they died, then they wrote about it? Did you read that before you hit send?
Also yes there are NON-Christian ancient sources that imply that Jesus and the apostles existed. Although of course they are not going to say he rose from the dead, but they realized that this is what the Christians believed in and that the apostles claimed.
Why not? If Jesus performed the amazing miracles reported in the gospels, and the sky went dark, and all those other things, surely other people would have written about it.
There may be a couple of sources that seem to imply that there may have been a preacher, and that he had followers. That's it, Jolly--that's all there is.
Here is a good source that puts all the non Christian source quotes together and shows the historicity of Jesus and his apostles. Corroboration from Non-Christian Sources
No thanks. If you have an argument, make it.
They were written by those who knew witnesses. But it is the account FROM the witnesses written down by those who were not witnesses.
How do you know? You don't know who wrote them. It's third, fourth or fifth hand hearsay by anonymous dudes. That's it. That's what you base your religious belief on, Jolly.
Yes, we know they existed and what their names were. It is recorded. And the record is corroborated by other records.
Sorry, you're mistaken. Unless you want to challenge the scholars in the field with your firsthand research into the documents?
They knew the witnesses who knew Christ and his resurrection.
You don't know who they were.
And they knew the witnesses died for his cause.
Sorry, bald assertion doesn't cut it. Support or retract.
The church fathers also died martyrs.
Yeah, well so did a few hundred people at Jonestown. Your point?
Forget church tradition for a moment, we have early accounts from the church fathers who KNEW the witnesses and they said they died for the cause of Christ, they just did not say in detail the WAY they died. But, we dont need to how the WAY they died, all we need to know is that they died and WHY they died. We have that. How do you deal with it?
You keep saying that, but you're simply wrong. You have writings decades after the events they purport to relate, based on nothing but mere rumor. Tell you what. Pick an apostle, any apostle, and we'll got through what we know and what we don't, o.k.?
I know because its recorded as history.
Except that it isn't.
And how do I know the recorder is not lying?
What recorder?
Other early accounts complement it.
Really? What?
How do I know there not conspiring? Because the witnesses died
What witnesses?
and the church fathers also died for Christs cause and massive amounts of Christians in the church also died under Nero.
Well millions of Jews have died at the hands of Christians; does that make Judaism correct?
There is no conspiracy. Now, explain how they could be mistaken that Jesus rose from death?
Easily. They weren't there. They don't know anyone who was there. People told people, who exagerrated, and told other people, until a few decades later it was distorted beyond recognition, incorporating many elements of the local mythology, at which point it finally got written down. Kinda like most myths in the world.
This is pathetic, we have accounts telling a story of a man named Jesus, who died for sin and rose from the dead and was seen by witnesses.
We have accounts of Krishna and Ehecatl--that doesn't make them real.
We have not just one account, but 4 eye witness accounts and then an account witnessing the birthing of the church at the day of Pentecost
You're mistaken. That's what I keep telling you. The gospels are not eye-witness accounts
.You're mistaken.
And then we have the letters of Paul who was acquainted with the witnesses.
Really? Who did Paul know who witnessed the resurrectino?
All of these accounts are independent from each other, they are not one book (the bible) they are many independent sources, compiled into one book.
Nope. They''re not even a tiny bit independent. In fact, scholars believe they're all based on each other and on a missing first version.
If there independent sources, that is the hall mark of historic evidence.
And there isn't.
Now we have other accounts that did not make it into the compilation of the bible, those are the church fathers writings.
So you give the same credence to the fathers of all the other churches? Think, Jolly--they were trying to spread a religion.
They also complement the stories in the accounts of the witnesses.
There are no witnesses. That's your problem. There are no eye-witness accounts, no even second hand accounts.
Both the witnesses, the church fathers AND the church suffered persecution and martyrdom. Now, explain how they could be mistaken?
There are no witnesses. How could non-existent people be persecuted?
I realize your pastors have fed you this crap, but it's still crap. It's just not correct. Sorry.
Your saying they lied basically, ok, what was there motive for lying?
No, I didn't. btw, what was the motive of Joseph Smith and his many followers who died in the early days of the LDS church for lying?
Why would they die for a KNOWN lie? They were mistaken? Ok, explain how they could have mistaken it?
Obviously--they weren't there. YOu have to remember, this is before the internet, before books, before newspapers. If you weren't there, you missed it. You don't have a clue what happened. YOu just do what everyone does, and pass on what you've heard to the best of your ability.
So that means this statement you just said is not true, since its a nonsense statement.
I asked you a question and I expect an answer, not this stupid because nonsense rarely is crap. My question was
Why does it not make it true? First you said you agree it does not make sense that they would die for a known lie, but that does not make it true. Then I asked you, why does it not make it true? To which you said because nonsense rarely is true.
Sorry, you misunderstood me. No, they did not die for a known lie. They probably died in their sleep, or because they believed things that were false. Unless you're now Mormon, Jewish, and every other religion with martyrs?
That is not an answer, answer the question or move along because I got no time for that crap.
Why does it not make it true? Or answer the other question, how could they have been mistaken?
Wow, you're really repetitive.
Or answer the other question, why would they lie and then suffer for it and die for it?
And slow to comprehend. I never said they were lying, although some lies probably entered into it as well.
I mean, take your pick, but at least answer one of them for goodness sakes.
Let's try this: are you familiar with Rastafarianism? O.K., Is Haile Selaissie God? There's been less time since his death than the time between the gospels and Christ's death.
