Like the very existence of some guy named Christ. Not to be too disrespectful, but I actually find it very hard to believe in some historical figure. 2000 years is a very long time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you really think you are helping anyone?
- Thread starter Draka
- Start date
Like the very existence of some guy named Christ. Not to be too disrespectful, but I actually find it very hard to believe in some historical figure. 2000 years is a very long time.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Understanding the genre is key when interpreting Scripture. The Bible contains poetry, wisdom literature, narrative, parables, apocalyptic literature. You have to view it through that lens when interpreting. All of creation testifies to the existence of a higher power despite the fact many want attribute such order and beauty to originating in chaos (Big bang theory). The law of God is also written on our hearts. Every one of us has a concience. We have no excuse for denying his existence. The next step is to seek him out and see if he draws near to us.
Last edited:
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Appealing to ambiguity is rather silly isn't it? Why can't bible bashers be consistent and at least definitive rather than being vague and referring to interpretation?
The funny thing is that these same people often demand scientific methods be full proof.
I knew they're usually hypocrites but this is quite extreme.
McBell
Unbound
You have been doing this song and dance to avoid presenting anything.
Are you going to actually present something or are you content with your blatant avoidance?
Just in case I have not already flat out told you...
I am not the least bit interested in the sermons.
I am not the least bit interested in the propaganda.
I am not the least bit interested in the philosophical merry-go-round.
I am not the least bit interested in the propaganda.
I am not the least bit interested in the philosophical merry-go-round.
McBell
Unbound
Wow.
All that and you still failed to answer the question.
Not that I am the least bit surprised.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
What you seek can't be contained in two or three paragraphs . I'm willing to post a college paper which is about 3 pages long double spaced that has condensed about every piece of eyewitness testimony/evidence in existence today for why the Christian message is true. I doubt you'll find a more condensed version anywhere else. If you're willing to read it, I'm willing to post it. it'll at least get you thinking.
Last edited:
Draka
Wonder Woman
People's testimonies are no more evidence of your religion than anyone else's. If you want to admit people's opinions and experiences into the argument so can every other single religion in existence. Do you not think that people of other religions have spiritual experiences and testimonies as well? What would make the ones you happen to choose anymore important or outweigh those of anyone else who just happens to have a different faith in complete contradiction to Christianity?
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
I didn't say anything about sharing opinions. I'm talking about hard evidence. Do you want to see it?
Draka
Wonder Woman
You said eye witness testimonies. That is not hard evidence. There are eye witness testimonies for other religions too. I have been an eye witness to many things, some of which would probably give you the heebie-jeebies and send you under your covers.
You have no hard evidence. You haven't mentioned any hard evidence yet. There isn't any. Short of the "hand of god" reaching out of the clouds with a giant pen and writing on the mountains "the Abrahamic god was here", you really can't show me any hard evidence.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
The evidence that I have is as "hard" as it's going to get in a matter like this
Reliability of eyewitness testimony of Christ
Through the beginning of the first century A.D. a man named Jesus Christ walked the earth. This fact is not in dispute except by a few small radical fringe groups. The disputes that surround Jesus revolve around who he was exactly and who he claimed to be. Around one billion people today believe that he was and is the one true God who came from Heaven into the form of a man to give his life as payment for the sins of man, rose from the dead after three days, appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses, and eventually ascended into Heaven. They believe that through faith in Jesus their sins against God are forgiven so that they are no longer enemies of God but his sons and daughters. These teachings are all found in the New Testament and many if not most would agree that these are bold claims that sound outlandish and are difficult to believe especially for hearts and minds trained to use science to explain all the mysteries of the universe. The truthfulness of the Christian message hangs on the answers to several questions. Are the teachings of the New Testament built on actual historical events? If so, have those events been recorded accurately? What does the evidence left behind by history say about the person of Jesus? The answer is this: The evidence history has left behind supports the veracity of the New Testament.
The accounts we have of Jesus’ life are found in the first four books of the New Testament called the gospels that allegedly are based on eyewitness testimony of his life. Some would challenge his notion by saying they were written by liars yet while the gospels are anonymous, it was the uniform testimony of the early church that Matthew the tax collector and disciple of Jesus wrote the first gospel, John Mark the companion of Peter the disciple wrote the second gospel, Luke who was the doctor of Paul, Jesus’ apostle wrote the third gospel, and John the apostle wrote the fourth, meaning that they were all based off of accounts given by either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony. (Strobel, 22-23). Another piece of evidence that supports the authenticity of the gospels are the names attributed to the authorship of the first three, the names of Luke, Matthew, and Mark. They were the names of people not nearly as famous as the names of Mary and James attributed to the aprocryphal gospels written centuries later. Mark and Luke weren’t even Jesus’ disciples and while Matthew was, he was also a hated tax collector at one time. We also have Papias writing in A.D. 125 that Mark accurately recorded Peter’s eyewitness testimony and Irenaeus in A.D. 180 confirming the traditional authorship. (Strobel 23).
Some have charged the New Testament was written one hundred and fifty to two hundred years after Jesus was crucified around 30 A.D. With so much time between the death of Jesus and the recording of the event embellishments and legendary material would surely contaminate the truth. Very little debate exists among New Testament scholars over the dating of the New Testament. The consensus is that the gospel of Mark was written in the 70’s, Matthew and Luke in the 80’s and John in the 90’s with the pastoral letters written in the late 40’s and 50’s, all within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Among these letters are several creeds of the early church such as one in 1 Corinthians 15 which states that Jesus died and rose from the dead and then appeared to Peter and the twelve disciples. The earliest of the creeds have been dated as far back as two years after the crucifixion. (Strobel 33). When we consider that the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written four centuries after his death in 323 B.C ., are still considered trustworthy, our accepted methods of determining the trustworthiness of ancient documents say the New Testament is accurate.
The fact remains that the account of Jesus life, death, and resurrection existed for a period of time only on the lips of storytellers as books and other forms of literature did not exist in large numbers. Many contend that this would indeed mean that pieces of the story would be lost as time went on so that by the time they were recorded on paper the truth would be distorted. Dr. Craig Blomberg in A Case for Christ says,
“…this was an oral culture, in which there was great emphasis placed on memorization… Rabbis became famous for having the Old Testament committed to memory.” This knowledge should only give us confidence in the ability of those who heard the story of Jesus’ life to accurately preserve the essential details until the point came when it was recorded on paper.
Many have contended that the truth about Jesus life was covered up yet the gospels consistently include material that might raise question about Jesus and be embarrassing to the disciples. Stories in the gospels of Jesus inability to do miracles because the people had little faith and of his lack of knowledge regarding the hour he would return to earth to judge mankind raise questions about his omniscience and omnipotence. The disciples are continuously shown to be ignorant and self serving from their inability to understand Jesus’ teachings to their desire to exalt themselves.
Skeptics contend that since the original copies of the New Testament no longer exist that doubt is raised about their authenticity yet this is not an issue unique to the New Testament. What is striking is that existing copies have been found from a couple of generations after the originals were written. This is in stark contrast to other ancient documents where sometimes upwards from ten centuries exist between the existing copies and the originals. Another factor that the New Testament has in its favor is that the number of ancient copies existing is around 24000. Compare that to Homer’s Illiad of which we have about 650 ancient copies today the earliest of which was written a thousand years after the original. Another ancient work, The Jewish War, by Josephus from the first century has nine copies in existence today written at least a thousand years after the originals (Strobel 43).
Skeptics of Christianity have said that the evidence outside the New Testament for the existence of Jesus and his resurrection is nonexistent, however a Jewish author named Josephus known to not be a follower of Jesus refers to him in The Antiquities.
“He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them to be stoned.”
In addition to Josephus, the Talmud , a piece of Jewish literature from 500 A.D. speaks of Jesus as a sorcerer and false messiah that was condemned to death. This confirms that he claimed to be a messiah and performed miracles only calling into question the source of his power.
That the Jews of the Old Testament period waited for a messiah who’d been prophesied forty eight different times in its pages is indisputable. Using prophesies such as those in Zechariah stating that the messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, some have contended that any imposter, knowing Scripture, could’ve just found a donkey and ridden it into the city so he could claim to be the prophecy’s fulfillment. The hole that exists in that argument is that while that might work for a few prophesies, for several others it would not. For instance, it was prophesied that the Sanhedrin would offer his betrayer 30 pieces of silver, that he would be from Bethlehem, that soldiers would gamble for his clothing and his death on a cross. Even the time of Jesus’ birth, a time after King Artaxerxes I ordered Jews to return from Persia to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls, is prophesied in the Old Testament and is the exact time Jesus is born (Strobel 184).
The reality is that by the standards with which we judge the veracity of ancient documents the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor the truthfulness of the eyewitness testimony of Jesus in the New Testament. The issue of discerning its truthfulness then becomes a question of what is possible in this universe. Do we lean solely on naturalistic explanations for everything that ever happens? Is science and the human brain able to discern every mystery of the universe? What role does humility play when discerning truth?
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ, September 1, 1998. Zondervan
Last edited:
xkatz
Well-Known Member
What if you preach against preaching?
Draka
Wonder Woman
Hey, at least I'm not telling you you're wrong and I'm right, I'm just telling you to shut up cause I don't want to hear it anymore
xkatz
Well-Known Member
Do single-spaced and then I'll be impressed.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
I'm glad. Maybe more people will read it. I'm sorry there's no spacing in the lines
Draka
Wonder Woman
I hope you didn't really think I was going to read all that. Like I said, there are eye witness accounts and testimonies and experiences that back other religions as well. Unless you are willing to entertain the idea that they are just as valid as any you pick to substantiate your claim then you cannot use "eyewitness testimony".
xkatz
Well-Known Member
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
You asked for a LOGICAL argument. I've just presented one. Take it or leave it
McBell
Unbound
Sorry, but the biased opinions of one apologetic does not a case make.
Nice try though.
now if that is the best you can offer, well, lets just say it was an epic fail and leave it at that.
McBell
Unbound
I will leave it.
Especially if that apologetic tripe is the best you got.
Wombat
Active Member
Oh please!.....I am a theist, I am a believer in the authority and message of the Christ.....but your "hard" "evidence" falls soft and limp in the very first sentance-
1/ He was not "named" 'Jesus Christ'...Christ is not his Surname it is his status, position, title and designation of authority.
2/ To call the existence of Jesus "fact" is one huge historical stretch...to claim this 'fact' "is not in dispute except by a few small radical fringe groups" is an absurd lie.
I didn't bother to read any further....I just went
.