How can you literally believe...

[Shad]

I asked you to tell me about some proof or disproof, but you didn't.

I told you where you can find a source so you can learn why modern scholarship has a different view. One view is based on the fact that the text is written in a form of high Greek poetry none of disciplines had knowledge of. The Gospels were written after the deaths of their namesakes. There are discrepancies between the Gospel's narratives such as when Jesus died, who was at his tomb, did he carry the cross or did Simon, etc. There is also the cross referencing of Mark in Mathew and Luke showing the later two borrowed from the former.

You did give this advice, though, and it cracked me up, so thanks for including it.

Sure I advised you where you can find modern views. Harvard and Yale still have their lectures on the NT up on Youtube youi can watch.

 

[Coder]

"Enter through the narrow gate.

Proverbs 4:25-27

"I am the way and the truth and the life.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+8:35-36

 

[loverofhumanity]

How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?

Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?

Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.

We Baha'is accept these things as figurative not literal.

Christianity evolved. In the beginning it was built on the firm foundation of love for God and love for your neighbour and that's why it grew so fast.

Gradually, over time, perhaps to win over people who believed in such things, Christians began to focus more on miracles and mythology to try and make itself appealing to the ideologies around it and win more converts which caused it to fall into superstition and mythology.

Christians perhaps tried too hard to appease those sects around them which believed in such things as bodily resurrection that they ended up compromising their religion just for new converts and now there is so much superstition in it that there are about 40,000 sects which cannot agree with the direction it has taken.

The true significance of Christ always was the ability of His Teachings to transform the character of people from ungodly to godly, from vice to virtue. That was His legacy and true miracle.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You didn't answer my question, so there you go.

For some Christians, it is the Birth, for it is the day the promised Messiah entered the world for some other Christians it is the day of the Resurrection, and for some others all holidays are blasphemous.

Do you know how it was shown to be a myth? Probably a Christian disproved it.

Actually, they just came to realize there actually were no such beings living on Mount Olympus, and they faded from the daily lives of the Greeks.

Not really.

Yes, really. If you make a claim, no one has to disprove it because you have to prove it.

Christianity isn't a myth like Greek mythology 5th-4th century BCE.

Yes, it is. And eventually it too will be shelved like Zues, Thor, Amaterasu, and Quetzalcoatl.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

For some Christians, it is the Birth, for it is the day the promised Messiah entered the world for some other Christians it is the day of the Resurrection, and for some others all holidays are blasphemous.

Actually, they just came to realize there actually were no such beings living on Mount Olympus, and they faded from the daily lives of the Greeks.

Yes, really. If you make a claim, no one has to disprove it because you have to prove it.

Yes, it is. And eventually it too will be shelved like Zues, Thor, Amaterasu, and Quetzalcoatl.

Limbrick hoz.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Hi there! I'm a Catholic Christian and would like to put a solid defence up for my faith. First of all, I'll start off with apologetics for the existence of God, then ask questions and make statements. Then, I'll retrieve information in support of the resurrection.

I'd say the first thing that would be a big pointer to the existence of God is the simple fact that something can't come from nothing. The cause of the universe would need to be something immaterial and external; such as God. Since he is spirit, he is not limited by space and time, he created both.



He is the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. Eternal with no beginning or end. He is also timeless. Think of him as the movement that pushed the chain of dominos. The funny thing about atheists is they complain about Christianity not having enough evidence for its beliefs system and yet atheism has none in itself.
I don't mean to be degrading, but merely speak the truth.



Here's the atheist view on how the universe came to be: Some chemicals and materials (Of which the origin is unknown) were floating around space and randomly came together to form the world and through millions of years of evolution we came about.



Here's the Christian view: The timeless uncaused eternal spirit of God of whom bestowed upon the world intelligibility and time created the universe from nothing and we evolved into who we are today. God started the process of life. He was the initial spark of light that lit the fire so to speak.


Which side makes more sense?

___________________________________

What proof and evidence can you provide that would prove atheism is accurate and correct?

___________________________________

What is the incentive for atheism that made you become one, is keeping you one now and will make you stay one in and for the future?

___________________________________

If there was evidence for God's existence that you would accept, what would it look like? And how would you determine its authenticity?

__________________________________

Is truth real and if so, how do you determine it?
___________________________________

Where are you in this cycle: God does not exist, but there may be evidence to prove that he does, there is no evidence, therefore he doesn't exist.

___________________________________

If there is no enduring ultimate truth that sustains all things, then how can atheism be true and rational, with its beliefs or lack thereof taken seriously?
___________________________________

If you need X amount of evidence in order to follow something or take it seriously, then what kind did you find that led you to what you believe?

___________________________________


The Historicity of Christ:


http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

http://carm.org/was-resurrection-story-borrowed

shockawenow.net
___________________________________

Further explaining God's existence:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

shockawenow.net

catholic.com

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/a-rational-approach-to-god’s-existence

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-something-rather-than-nothing

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-speak-to-an-atheist
__________________________________

Resources on Atheism:

http://creation.mobi/atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Comedy_and_satires_concerning_atheism_and_evolution
___________________________________


Evolution and other information:

http://www.catholic.com/browse/all/evolution/all/all

http://creation.mobi/atheist-arguments

http://creation.mobi/dinosaurs-falsify-evolution

http://creation.mobi/philosophy-ethics-belief

http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/the-great-creationevolution-debate

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/dawkins’-debunkers
___________________________________

Catholic Myths:

http://www.catholic.com/browse/all/Catholic myths/all/all


http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/slavery


http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/curricula/mariology


http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/religion-is-irrational-right
___________________________________

God bless!


I could give much more evidence, but this should be good enough for now.

A few final notes:


Science has shown us that we currently only know about 1% of the universe, how could you possibly make any claims (or provide evidence) that an ultimate God that is eternal, external and immaterial doesn't exist?

___________________________________

Science also shows us that the universe will eventually 'die' or run out of usable energy, so if the end result of all that you do leads to death, then why even bother trying to talk people out of Christianity? If we're all going to die no matter what?


God bless!


So please, leave atheism. It has and still is literally killing people. Here are the links to prove it:


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091103130324AAsqlsd

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Proof that most atheists commit suicide.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Proof that atheism has killed over 100,000,000 people.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Last time we saw that the New Testament documents are the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The so-called apocryphal gospels are forgeries which came much later and are for the most part elaborations of the four New Testament gospels.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t sources outside the Bible which refer to Jesus. There are. He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,
Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.1

Still, if we want any details about Jesus’s life and teachings, we must turn to the New Testament. Extra-biblical sources confirm what we read in the gospels, but they don’t really tell us anything new. The question then must be: how historically reliable are the New Testament documents?
Burden of Proof

Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.

But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

I don’t have enough time to talk about all of these. So let me say something about the first and the last points.

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. No modern scholar thinks of the gospels as bald-faced lies, the result of a massive conspiracy. The only place you find such conspiracy theories of history is in sensationalist, popular literature or former propaganda from behind the Iron Curtain. When you read the pages of the New Testament, there’s no doubt that these people sincerely believed in the truth of what they proclaimed. Rather ever since the time of D. F. Strauss, sceptical scholars have explained away the gospels as legends. Like the child’s game of telephone, as the stories about Jesus were passed on over the decades, they got muddled and exaggerated and mythologized until the original facts were all but lost. The Jewish peasant sage was transformed into the divine Son of God.

One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen. This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.2 Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. These do contain all sorts of fabulous stories about Jesus, trying to fill in the years between his boyhood and his starting his ministry, for example. These are the obvious legends sought by the critics, not the biblical gospels.

This point becomes even more devastating for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.3

Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. Again I only have time to look at one example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. These are really one work and are separated in our Bibles only because the church grouped the gospels together in the New Testament. Luke is the gospel writer who writes most self-consciously as an historian. In the preface to this work he writes:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Lk. 1.1-4)

This preface is written in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian. He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.

Now who was this author we call Luke? He was clearly not an eyewitness to Jesus’s life. But we discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts. Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: "we set sail from Troas to Samothrace," "we remained in Philippi some days," "as we were going to the place of prayer," etc. The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities. In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry in Jerusalem. Sceptical critics have done back-flips to try to avoid this conclusion. They say that the use of the first-person plural in Acts should not be taken literally; it’s just a literary device which is common in ancient sea voyage stories. Never mind that many of the passages in Acts are not about Paul’s sea voyage, but take place on land! The more important point is that this theory, when you check it out, turns out to be sheer fantasy.4 There just was no literary device of sea voyages in the first person plural—the whole thing has been shown to be a scholarly fiction! There is no avoiding the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life while in Jerusalem. Who were some of these eyewitnesses? Perhaps we can get some clue by subtracting from the Gospel of Luke everything found in the other gospels and seeing what is peculiar to Luke. What you discover is that many of Luke’s peculiar narratives are connected to women who followed Jesus: people like Joanna and Susanna, and significantly, Mary, Jesus’s mother.

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. 5Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."6 The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."7 Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

On the basis of the five reasons I listed, we are justified in accepting the historical reliability of what the gospels say about Jesus unless they are proven to be wrong. At the very least, we cannot assume they are wrong until proven right. The person who denies the gospels’ reliability must bear the burden of proof.


Specific Aspects of Jesus’s Life

Now by the very nature of the case, it will be impossible to say a whole lot more beyond this to prove that certain stories in the gospels are historically true. How could you prove, for example, the story of Jesus’s visiting Mary and Martha? You just have here a story told by a reliable author in a position to know and no reason to doubt the historicity of the story. There’s not much more to say.

Nevertheless, for many of the key events in the gospels, a great deal more can be said. What I’d like to do now is take a few of the important aspects of Jesus in the gospels and say a word about their historical credibility.

1. Jesus’s Radical Self-Concept as the Divine Son of God. Radical critics deny that the historical Jesus thought of himself as the divine Son of God. They say that after Jesus’s death, the early church claimed that he had said these things, even though he hadn’t.

The big problem with this hypothesis is that it is inexplicable how monotheistic Jews could have attributed divinity to a man they had known, if he never claimed any such things himself. Monotheism is the heart of the Jewish religion, and it would have been blasphemous to say that a human being was God. Yet this is precisely what the earliest Christians did proclaim and believe about Jesus. Such a claim must have been rooted in Jesus’s own teaching.

And in fact, the majority of scholars do believe that among the historically authentic words of Jesus—these are the words in the gospels which the Jesus Seminar would print in red—among the historically authentic words of Jesus are claims that reveal his divine self-understanding. One could give a whole lecture on this point alone; but let me focus on Jesus’s self-concept of being the unique, divine Son of God.

Jesus’s radical self-understanding is revealed, for example, in his parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard. Even sceptical scholars admit the authenticity of this parable, since it is also found in the Gospel of Thomas, one of their favorite sources. In this parable, the owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The vineyard symbolizes Israel, the owner is God, the tenants are the Jewish religious leaders, and the servants are prophets send by God. The tenants beat and reject the owner’s servants. Finally, the owner says, "I will send my only, beloved son. They will listen to my son." But instead, the tenants kill the son because he is the heir to the vineyard. Now what does this parable tell us about Jesus’s self-understanding? He thought of himself as God’s special son, distinct from all the prophets, God’s final messenger, and even the heir to Israel. This is no mere Jewish peasant!

Jesus’s self-concept as God’s son comes to explicit expression in Matthew 11.27: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." Again there is good reason to regard this as an authentic saying of the historical Jesus. It is drawn from an old source which was shared by Matthew and Luke, which scholars call the Q document. Moreover, it is unlikely the Church invented this saying because it says that the Son is unknowable—"no one knows the Son except the Father"—, but for the post-Easter church we can know the Son. So this saying is not the product of later Church theology. What does this saying tell us about Jesus’s self-concept? He thought of himself as the exclusive and absolute Son of God and the only revelation of God to mankind! Make no mistake: if Jesus wasn’t who he said he was, he was crazier than David Koresh and Jim Jones put together!

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Finally, I want to consider one more saying: Jesus’s saying on the date of his second coming in Mark 13.32: "But of that day or that hour no man knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This is an authentic saying of the historical Jesus because the later Church, which regarded Jesus as divine, would never have invented a saying ascribing limited knowledge or ignorance to Jesus. But here Jesus says he doesn’t know the time of his return. So what do we learn from this saying? It not only reveals Jesus’s consciousness of being the one Son of God, but it presents us with an ascending scale from men to the angels to the Son to the Father, a scale on which Jesus transcends any human being or angelic being. This is really incredible stuff! Yet it is what the historical Jesus believed. And this is only one facet of Jesus’s self-understanding. C. S. Lewis was right when he said,
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.8

2. Jesus’s Miracles.Even the most sceptical critics cannot deny that the historical Jesus carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcism. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most sceptical scholars this century has seen, wrote back in 1926:
Most of the miracle stories contained in the gospels are legendary or at least are dressed up with legends. But there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries’ understanding, miracles, that is, deeds that were the result of supernatural, divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons.9

Back in Bultmann’s day the miracle stories were thought to be influenced by stories of mythological heroes and, hence, at least in part legendary. But today it is recognized that the hypothesis of mythological influence was historically incorrect. Craig Evans, a well-known Jesus scholar, says that "the older notion" that the miracle stories were the product of mythological divine man ideas "has been largely abandoned."10 He says, "It is no longer seriously contested" "that miracles played a role in Jesus’s ministry." The only reason left for denying that Jesus performed literal miracles is the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism, which is simply unjustified.

3. Jesus’s Trial and Crucifixion. According to the gospels Jesus was condemned by the Jewish high court on the charge of blasphemy and then delivered to the Romans for execution for the treasonous act of setting himself up as King of the Jews. Not only are these facts confirmed by independent biblical sources like Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, but they are also confirmed by extra-biblical sources. From Josephus and Tacitus, we learn that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority under the sentence of Pontius Pilate. From Josephus and Mara bar Serapion we learn that the Jewish leaders made a formal accusation against Jesus and participated in events leading up to his crucifixion. And from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, we learn that Jewish involvement in the trial was explained as a proper undertaking against a heretic. According to Johnson, "The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion."11 The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact." 12

But that raises the very puzzling question: Why was Jesus crucified? As we have seen, the evidence indicates that his crucifixion was instigated by his blasphemous claims, which to the Romans would come across as treasonous. That’s why he was crucified, in the words of the plaque that was nailed to the cross above his head, as "The King of the Jews." But if Jesus was just a peasant, cynic philosopher, just a liberal social gadfly, as the Jesus Seminar claims, then his crucifixion becomes inexplicable. As Professor Leander Keck of Yale University has said, "The idea that this Jewish cynic (and his dozen hippies) with his demeanor and aphorisms was a serious threat to society sounds more like a conceit of alienated academics than sound historical judgement."13 New Testament scholar John Meier is equally direct. He says that a bland Jesus who just went about spinning out parables and telling people to look at the lilies of the field-- "such a Jesus," he says, "would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one."14 The Jesus Seminar has created Jesus who is incompatible with the one indisputable fact of his crucifixion.

4. The resurrection of Jesus. It seems to me that there are four established facts which constitute inductive evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

 

[SoldierofChrist]

. The resurrection of Jesus. It seems to me that there are four established facts which constitute inductive evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."15

Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."16 As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."17

Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."18

Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’s resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for—apart from the resurrection itself.19

Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts: the honorable burial of Jesus, the discovery of his empty tomb, his appearances alive after his death, and the very origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection and, hence, of Christianity itself. I want to emphasize that these four facts represent, not the conclusions of conservative scholars, nor have I quoted conservative scholars, but represent rather the majority view of New Testament scholarship today. The question is: how do you best explain these facts?

Now this puts the sceptical critic in a somewhat desperate situation. For example, some time ago I had a debate with a professor at the University of California, Irvine, on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He had written his doctoral dissertation on the subject and was thoroughly familiar with the evidence. He could not deny the facts of Jesus’s honorable burial, his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. Therefore, his only recourse was to come up with some alternative explanation of these facts. And so he argued that Jesus had an unknown identical twin brother who was separated from him at birth, came back to Jerusalem just at the time of the crucifixion, stole Jesus’s body out of the grave, and presented himself to the disciples, who mistakenly inferred that Jesus was risen from the dead! Now I won’t go into how I went about refuting his theory, but I think that this theory is instructive because it shows to what desperate lengths skepticism must go in order to deny the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the evidence is so powerful that one of today’s leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapide has declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead!20

Conclusion

In summary, the gospels are not only trustworthy documents in general, but as we look at some of the most important aspects of Jesus in the gospels, like his radical personal claims, his miracles, his trial and crucifixion, and his resurrection, their historical veracity shines through. God has acted in history, and we can know it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Hi there! I'm a Catholic Christian and would like to put a solid defence up for my faith.

Welcome. This should be mind blowing, right?

I'll start off with apologetics for the existence of God

You shouldn't have to apologize.

I'd say the first thing that would be a big pointer to the existence of God is the simple fact that something can't come from nothing. The cause of the universe would need to be something immaterial and external; such as God. Since he is spirit, he is not limited by space and time, he created both.

None of this follows. Just because a dead Greek dude said things like Unmoved Mover or something doesn't make it real.

Even if God is not limited by space and time, WE are, so to have any interactions with US, He must necessarily be limited to space and time.

Eternal with no beginning or end. He is also timeless.

The universe can also be eternal, or at least eternally cyclical, and time is relative.

Here's the atheist view on how the universe came to be: Some chemicals and materials (Of which the origin is unknown) were floating around space and randomly came together to form the world and through millions of years of evolution we came about.

And that's more unbelievable than you being descended from a guy made out of dirt HOW?

Here's the Christian view

Here's the "Creationist" view. Fixed.

The Golden Rule has nothing to do with the origin of species, now, does it?

Which side makes more sense?

It's not about sense, but about evidence. My mom can't switch between inputs on our tv. Does that mean our tv is divine because she doesn't understand how a tv works?

What proof and evidence can you provide that would prove atheism is accurate and correct?

The only thing I can agree with atheists is that fundamentalist creationist myths are obviously inaccurate portrayals of reality. There ARE other ways of viewing divine reality, though, and many don't concern themselves with more "obscure" viewpoints as it's the fundies who get the most press.

What is the incentive for atheism that made you become one, is keeping you one now and will make you stay one in and for the future?

Huh?

If there was evidence for God's existence that you would accept, what would it look like? And how would you determine its authenticity?

How did you?

Is truth real and if so, how do you determine it?

Studying it, looking for evidence, not believing the first nonsense put before us...

If there is no enduring ultimate truth that sustains all things, then how can atheism be true and rational, with its beliefs or lack thereof taken seriously?

How does the presence of a deity give you meaning? What does it have to do with YOU?

Science has shown us that we currently only know about 1% of the universe, how could you possibly make any claims (or provide evidence) that an ultimate God that is eternal, external and immaterial doesn't exist?

You know absolutely NOTHING of the reality of the biblical characters (and whether they are based on real people or not, they are still LITERARY CHARACTERS while in the book), and yet you are fine with that.

edit: you typed up all of those posts after my last quote of yours awfully fast ... lemme guess: copy and paste?

 

[GodsVoice]

Then why are you pushing me away from God?
Tom

If you feel like you're being pushed away, then it's because you're not a chosen believer. All unspiritual men reject the Truth.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Welcome. This should be mind blowing, right?


You shouldn't have to apologize.

I have no intentions of apologizing.

None of this follows. Just because a dead Greek dude said things like Unmoved Mover or something doesn't make it real.

Even if God is not limited by space and time, WE are, so to have any interactions with US, He must necessarily be limited to space and time.

Not necessarily, considering the fact that the type of interactions he has with us dont contradict his own nature.

The universe can also be eternal, or at least eternally cyclical, and time is relative.

First off, there isn't any evidence to support that theory, and if the universe was eternal, it would have run out of usable energy by now.

And that's more unbelievable than you being descended from a guy made out of dirt HOW?

Because at least on our part, there is an eternal external cause at work, and evidence to sustain our views, unlike you.

Here's the "Creationist" view. Fixed.

The Golden Rule has nothing to do with the origin of species, now, does it?


It's not about sense, but about evidence. My mom can't switch between inputs on our tv. Does that mean our tv is divine because she doesn't understand how a tv works?

Nope, because we have physical evidence to tell us otherwise. And apparently, you have no evidence in any form to support your side.

The only thing I can agree with atheists is that fundamentalist creationist myths are obviously inaccurate portrayals of reality. There ARE other ways of viewing divine reality, though, and many don't concern themselves with more "obscure" viewpoints as it's the fundies who get the most press.


You didn't answer the question; What proof and evidence, in the form of data, facts or arguments, can you provide, that proves atheism is reliable or rational?

Huh?

Basically, why are you atheist? What caused you to become one?

How did you?

By acknowledging that my side is the most rational, by the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it. And the lack thereof from you.

Studying it, looking for evidence, not believing the first nonsense put before us...

What evidence led you to what you believe? Is truth enduring, or is it temporal and changing?

How does the presence of a deity give you meaning? What does it have to do with YOU?

It gives me the very essence of meaning itself, the reason to be alive, to worship the one who brought us all into existence and serve him. As I'm doing right now.

You know absolutely NOTHING of the reality of the biblical characters (and whether they are based on real people or not, they are still LITERARY CHARACTERS while in the book), and yet you are fine with that.

Yes, because regardless of whether or not people like Job actually existed, doesn't take away from the meaning of scripture.

edit: you typed up all of those posts after my last quote of yours awfully fast ... lemme guess: copy and paste?

Actually, I posted all that before I even saw your reply.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

I don't really know how to post correctly here yet lol. How do I make the same message that you did? [emoji14]

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

ForeverCatholic;

I’ve been searching for info on Bishop J. W. Sergerus on the internet, and find absolutely nothing about him except for what is already obvious – that he was a crackpot heretic who called himself a bishop and wrote a book of anti-Christian BS and implausibly false history

lol - dont know what search engine you use - but google has the answers as always lol Here this may help :

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ie=...W.+Sergerus&gws_rd=cr&ei=MfU_WLz-LIera5K8iJgP - was pretty simple really.....Look - there, check a few links -YOU may call him a crackpot heretic writing anti christian bs - but look - OTHER SCHOLARS there also agree with him dont they..?...You know - those without any RELIGIOUS BIAS looked at all this and THEY agree with the history that YOU alone cannot accept....

Even your Catholic religion itself fully admits its dubious origins - those other quotes I present come directly from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA itself...lol and they FULLY ADMIT as said first, there own ELDEST copies of canon date ONLY to the mid 4th century - it does NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BEFORE THIS TIME - and the CATHOLICS say they have the eldest anywhere and they ARE indeed mid 4th century....That Nicea meeting is when your bible is conceived and the process begins.....Further supporting evidence comes from the main man - aide to Constantine himself - given direct instructions how to proceed - and this man Eusibius, then records it all for us in his own words - hes not religious, no bias - and he tells us clearly what ACTUALLY happened and what Constantine ACTUALLY gave as instruction and reasons for this....It is as said - Constantine told HIM - a NONE BELIEVER - not "christian" at all - and had HIM pick and choose what this "religious truth" should now be....its a FARCE -a narrative cobbled together from all those hundreds of scared texts - pieced together by a group of scholars who had NO AFFILIATION to any religion involved - it was an exercise in "crowd control" - domination and nothing more and that intent was also clearly stated by Constantine - there shall be NO MORE WAR FOR RELIGIONS SAKE was HIS agenda - let it sink in..........

Nothing in your post speaks for the Catholic Church..

lol -EXCEPT for the man who invented your bible Eusibius -excpet for Constantine himself who gave this man his DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS how to achieve this - and of course, except for the CATHOLIC Academics who compiled the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA which admits verifies and supports ALL that I present....As said the Catholic authority itself FULLY ADMITS ITS BOGUS ORIGIN - and then asks you simply and blindly, to "have faith in them"...lol... Even your leaders admit their truth - obscurely - but admitted nonetheless - only you cling stubbornly to their deceipt even now when they tell you truthfully what they did and how it REALLY began...

S S Edge;

So the Bible can't be trusted as it is altered, cobbled together, and thusly inaccurate, and as evidence of this you produce..passages from that same book.

lol - REALLY..??.....>SHOW ME WHERE - if you can..??.... You may see me quote the odd CANON passage, and then EXPLAIN it to you (all) properly - but you will NEVER see me rely on the canon alone for truth, as simply it is NOT truth - but perhaps a twisted incomplete basis at best, and even an outright deception at worse -so NO - not EVER will you see me present a canon passage or rely on THAT alone - but you will see me often present it then EXPLAIN it from the perspecive of Christ - show you how we actually got from legitimate CHRIST to fictional character "Jesus" and how they have manipulated that truth always.....

Look I will demonstrate it again here - as it is mentioned - more scripture - forget the chapter and verse as they are not important - but the things they say - here an issue is mentioned above of a "narrow gate" leading to ETERNAL LIFE - or take the "wide gate" leads only to death....Well look - the WIDE gate IS THE RELIGION ITSELF - many many MANY find that way - and it leads ONLY to yet another ignorant death.... Or do as CHRIST ADVISED - seek the "narrow gate" which He said is found WITHIN the Self - within the MIND - and once open will allow you to claim your ETERNAL nature and thus mortal death will no longer be a concern...Of course - this would obviously mean that the religion and wide gate are to be avoided in favour of this inner personal approach - and yes indeed Folks, we see that is precisely and exactly what His other teachings ALSO advises isnt it..???


Yes indeed - quit the temple - no more babbling like a pagan - no more useless rituals and never ending begging prayers - no priest mddleman intermediary needed at all - go ALONE In SECRET He ACTUALLY said - seek inwards and indeed find, open this NARROW GATE to find your truth...NOT found out in the temple - NOT given from another man - that way lead sot DEATH He warned so have no part of that religion at all - shun and avoid it fully He said - as in DAMN those pharisee religious leaders who know NOTHING of legitimate truth - and advised we need to come to HATE your parents ways and traditions now IF you want this NEW truth Christ alone offers...Yer - wide gate - religion - not so good - to be avoided at all costs He said, just come completely out form under its influence - HATE it, DAMN it.......Narrow Gate - inner secret journey - brings eternal life - brings the Holy Ghost - seek after THIS truth always and follow this guide alone He said - as always to those with ears to actually hear

 

[Ben Avraham]

How Can You Literally Believe?

Probably because he or she has no ability to understand metaphorical language.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I have no intentions of apologizing.

I just get a kick out of the fact that justification uses the word "apologies" instead of "justification". It tends to focus less on reason and more on the logic of drunk Greeks.

Not necessarily, considering the fact that the type of interactions he has with us dont contradict his own nature.

Yes, necessarily. If God wants to talk to me on Tues night, He can't do it any other time just because He's timeless. Tues night is Tues night, no matter what kind of being you are.

First off, there isn't any evidence to support that theory, and if the universe was eternal, it would have run out of usable energy by now.

So can God, and not if the Universe is cyclical.

Because at least on our part, there is an eternal external cause at work, and evidence to sustain our views, unlike you.

I can put some of my cells under a microscope and see animal cells. I can study the DNA and see a mammalian primate. What I will NEVER see is dirt (assuming I washed my hands or something).

Nope, because we have physical evidence to tell us otherwise. And apparently, you have no evidence in any form to support your side.

I'm a Christian theist. I just simply care to "judge the tree by its fruit" and got tired of being sold a brochure of an prune and being told it's a real chocolate ice cream.

Basically, why are you atheist? What caused you to become one?

I laugh at the picture of your mind being blown that I worship God.

What evidence led you to what you believe? Is truth enduring, or is it temporal and changing?

Both reality and our perceptions of it can change. If you disagree, feel free to justify a New Testament if the Old one was sufficient.

It gives me the very essence of meaning itself, the reason to be alive, to worship the one who brought us all into existence and serve him. As I'm doing right now.

What if God simply started a computer game as a kid, went on to bigger and brighter things, realized this "game" was still playing the background, eating up all His memory on His hard drive, and He's all like "Wow ... why is this piece of crap even still RUNNING? Delete ...."

Just because God exists doesn't make you or anyone else special. It does not logically follow.

I mean, even though I'm a Christian (post-Christian, I guess, if we want to nitpick, as I feel Jesus gave us the milk and I've graduated to wanting more meaty information), what really irks me is this infatuation with bad logic, outdated information, and a fickle faith that cannot handle new information. You would think the "Religion of Truth" would have higher standards or something.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

Christianity was illegal in ancient Rome until the Edict of Toleration was issued by Emperor Galerius in 311.

Who knows how much of history is missing/modified from that period? - the victors can write history. What we do know is that the Jewish Temple was destroyed during the birth of Christianity and then pagan temples were destroyed after Constantine. We also know that books not accepted for the Bible were discarded. Why would one doubt that writings/history from other Jewish, Christian, and secular sources were not destroyed? Centuries later weren't some Christians ordering books to be burned? I think this history indicates a traditional methodology.

For the elements from all religions that the Roman Universal Church contained, it certainly fits the picture of an empire that wanted a unified religion, as does the destruction of Jewish and pagan temples fit the picture. The Bible records Jesus as prophesying the destruction of the Temple but some scholars believe that this was likely a Roman insertion into the Scriptures (e.g. Flavius) after the Temple was destroyed - i.e. it was not a prophecy, but history recorded as a prophecy.

Roman Catholic means Roman Universal. Why would a church have a name based on an empire (Holy Roman Empire) if it's universal truth is for all of humanity? Now the Church is tending to call itself Catholic with separation from the Roman part of the name. That's a good step. Now I propose to Catholicism to remove, or at least stop insisting that all must accept, doctrines/practices with roots, not in Judaism, but in Greek/Roman/pagan religion. Belief in the Trinity, which I propose is plug-and-play for "father-son" gods and Divi Filius, should be optional. Belief in praying to saints, which I propose is plug-and-play for Roman patron gods, should be optional. So I think that if the Church moves away from these non-Jewish-roots doctrines, or at least becomes more tolerant/flexible about these doctrines, it may move towards being the human Universal Church instead of the Roman Universal Church. I also believe, that the tradition of insistence of doctrines is an inherited "attitude" from the Roman Empire, and that some of these narrow the scope of Christianity for humanity.

Jesus said to follow Him.
Did He say: "You can't be my follower unless you believe that God is three Persons."?
Did He say: "You can't be my follower unless you believe Mary was assumed into Heaven"?
Did He say: "You can't be my follower unless you pray to saints during worship"?

Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. When Rome "converted", why didn't they immediately apologize to Jewish people and rebuild their Temple? Instead, they went about destroying pagan temples. Is this the Christian way!? I think not. Is this evidence of a "conversion" of the Roman Empire!? I think not. (Centuries later there was still ordering of book burning.)

Now, 2000 years later, the Roman Church is apologizing to Jews because they see how wrong these approaches and methodologies have been. Pope Francis is showing a new approach, thank God.

The Roman Church has done and still does much good in the world today. I propose to the Roman Church, to free itself from Greek/Roman/pagan-religion-based doctrines, practices, and methodologies and move toward being a human universal church instead of a Roman universal Church.

Looking back to the Jewish roots is good IMHO:
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

Changing approach is good IMHO:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...cis-forcefully-tells-italian-church-gathering
Pope Francis: "Often it brings us to assume a style of control, of hardness,..."

 

[SoldierofChrist]

I just get a kick out of the fact that justification uses the word "apologies" instead of "justification". It tends to focus less on reason and more on the logic of drunk Greeks. [emoji14]

?

Yes, necessarily. If God wants to talk to me on Tues night, He can't do it any other time just because He's timeless. Tues night is Tues night, no matter what kind of being you are.

[I'm curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that the one who created all time energy, and matter can be limited as to what He can do. Tuesday (or any other day) are merely arbitrary terms we use to describe time. How does this affect God? Also, what kind of action specifically are you talking about that would usurp God's attributes? How do you know they would do so? And he may talk to us through either people or scripture; it's not Him physically coming down from the sky to pay us a visit every night lol.

So can God, and not if the Universe is cyclical.

[Actually he cannot, considering the fact that He does not consist of a physical and or perishable substance. Science shows us that the universe will eventually die, or run out of usable energy, so if we're all going to die no matter what we do in the end, I don't suppose this debate has much meaning for you when all is said and done. Yet again, there is no evidence to support the eternal or cyclical universe theory, and I challenge you to present some.]

I can put some of my cells under a microscope and see animal cells. I can study the DNA and see a mammalian primate. What I will NEVER see is dirt (assuming I washed my hands or something.)

[I do not deny that God could have quite possibly used some kind of evolution to bring us to where we are now, but I reject the idea as being an origin instead of a process. Considering the fact that there is no concrete evidence to support the theory of evolution.]

I'm a Christian theist. I just simply care to "judge the tree by its fruit" and got tired of being sold a brochure of an prune and being told it's a real chocolate ice cream.

[Kind of confused about what your trying to say here.]

I laugh at the picture of your mind being blown that I worship God.

[Not sure what you mean by that, considering the fact that your attempting to refute both Theism and Christianity.]

Both reality and our perceptions of it can change. If you disagree, feel free to justify a New Testament if the Old one was sufficient.

[Both the old and new testament are sufficient for the Christian life. The old is revealed in the new, and the new is hinted at in the old. They both in combination are a perfect match. Your saying that all of the new testament would be entirely unnecessary? So, reality and our perceptions change...does that mean that the world around us is no longer as real as it used to be? Does it mean that moral's are now obsolete just because we have "New information"? There are truths in this life, along with the very real nature of reality it self, that DO NOT change. Constants if you will. If everything was always changing, then the world would have "Changed" into something else entirely by now. It's like if I said "Hey, my Perception of reality changed, I'm going to go murder someone now, as moral's and human value no longer are 'real' anymore. They changed drastically. Its the way to the world I suppose!" Nope, it doesn't make any sense, and doesn't add up, just like the majority of your complaints.]

What if God simply started a computer game as a kid, went on to bigger and brighter things, realized this "game" was still playing the background, eating up all His memory on His hard drive, and He's all like "Wow ... why is this piece of crap even still RUNNING? Delete ...."

Just because God exists doesn't make you or anyone else special. It does not logically follow.


I mean, even though I'm a Christian (post-Christian, I guess, if we want to nitpick, as I feel Jesus gave us the milk and I've graduated to wanting more meaty information), what really irks me is this infatuation with bad logic, outdated information, and a fickle faith that cannot handle new information. You would think the "Religion of Truth" would have higher standards or something.

[Not sure I understand this... God's existence and the truth of Christianity makes humanity itself special; Right after He created us he said "VERY good" and gave us alone the ability to have an intimate relationship with Him through our rationality, conscience and free will. Which gives us all reason and an objective to live for Him. So that we have eternal life in return. That sounds pretty special to me. And considering the fact that we were part of His plan from the beginning, is pretty special as well. Also I've mentioned it before, and I'll mention it again; you've brought no arguments, failed to disassemble mine and brought no evidence in any capacity to prove your position true. So I ask that you do so please. Along with my argument for the resurrection.]