I don't believe those things literally happened. Historicity is irrelevant, in my personal beliefs.
-
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!
How can you literally believe...
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Who would you believe, writers such as has been discussed, or writers such as those who WROTE they were chosen by Christ Himself. [/fixed]
I suspect there was some sort of "Jesus wuz here" label on it or something?
That, and when you quickly need to fill out your military roster and all the damn pacifists you've been persecuting don't want to help out, it's best to kiss and make up and turn Jesus into your mascot.
Because God is easily fooled by last minute "whoopsies".
Not really. John said Jesus said that. I believe God is Truth and Jesus may have wanted to be the Way. And yet, even in the blasphemy that is John, I recall that even there Jesus notes he came from his Father and can only do what his Father wanted, which still puts God on top of the org chart, not Jesus.
As an aside, I realize you've been messaging me. However, I don't know you well enough to read unsolicited messages, plus I hate sermons, especially copy/paste ones, and I find "soldier" to be, if not a blasphemous descriptor of a Christian, then close enough so that one can see the Town of Blasphemy from one's house.
Post things that are more "you" than long tracts you couldn't be bothered to do anything besides copy/paste and I might change my mind.
Other religious leaders weren't as filled with hubris, perhaps. The WAY is what's important, not who talks about it.
Are you aware that in art, Jesus the Light Bringer was usually painted to resemble Apollo, whereas Jesus the Judge was usually painted to resemble Zeus?
At any rate, "Yahweh" can be traced to pre-Judaism, where Yaw/Yahweh/Yam was a chaotic sea god whom Baal killed and they were all El's kids anyhow. As we have definitive evidence that there was a "backstory" to Yahweh the bible likes to downplay, how can you believe Yahweh ... I am sorry, I forgot ... you don't think the one true God is Yahweh, but Jesus. My mistake. Carry on...
You don't have to be a gnostic to realize just how convenient the political manipulation was.
SoldierofChrist
Member
Who would you believe, writers such as has been discussed, or writers such as those who WROTE they were chosen by Christ Himself. [/fixed]
Not really. John said Jesus said that. I believe God is Truth and Jesus may have wanted to be the Way. And yet, even in the blasphemy that is John, I recall that even there Jesus notes he came from his Father and can only do what his Father wanted, which still puts God on top of the org chart, not Jesus.
Your point?
As an aside, I realize you've been messaging me. However, I don't know you well enough to read unsolicited messages, plus I hate sermons, especially copy/paste ones, and I find "soldier" to be, if not a blasphemous descriptor of a Christian, then close enough so that one can see the Town of Blasphemy from one's house.
Post things that are more "you" than long tracts you couldn't be bothered to do anything besides copy/paste and I might change my mind.
I'm sorry to disappoint? Your still not attempting to disassemble any of my arguments as I challenged you to do. Like the Resurrection argument etc. Nor are you bringing ANY evidence to support what your saying. You didn't refute any of what I said earlier either...
Are you aware that in art, Jesus the Light Bringer was usually painted to resemble Apollo, whereas Jesus the Judge was usually painted to resemble Zeus?
At any rate, "Yahweh" can be traced to pre-Judaism, where Yaw/Yahweh/Yam was a chaotic sea god whom Baal killed and they were all El's kids anyhow. As we have definitive evidence that there was a "backstory" to Yahweh the bible likes to downplay, how can you believe Yahweh ... I am sorry, I forgot ... you don't think the one true God is Yahweh, but Jesus. My mistake. Carry on...
Ok...the question I asked, was wether or not anyone could give me reason (or evidence) to believe in man made god's like Apollo or Zeus. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of these man made god's. Instead of copy pasting, I'll give you these links:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/jesus-and-the-pagan-gods
http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review
I'm still not fully fledged in my apologetics, so I must either produce links or copy paste. Though I have been in many debates, I'm not fully efficient quite yet. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not conceding, but merely stating a fact. So I want to add a bit of friendliness to this; I've really been enjoying our little dispute here, and you are definitely a worthy opponent, and one of the smartest people I've ever met. I hope that even though all this, we learn more about the Truth, and each other. So thanks!
Last edited:
SoldierofChrist
Member
This freaking messaging and quoting system is driving me nuts man.
SoldierofChrist
Member
I'm sorry to disappoint? Your still not attempting to disassemble any of my arguments as I challenged you to do. Like the Resurrection argument etc. Nor are you bringing ANY evidence to support what your saying. You didn't refute any of what I said earlier either...
QUOTE="Kelly of the Phoenix, post: 4981076, member: 58387
Are you aware that in art, Jesus the Light Bringer was usually painted to resemble Apollo, whereas Jesus the Judge was usually painted to resemble Zeus?
At any rate, "Yahweh" can be traced to pre-Judaism, where Yaw/Yahweh/Yam was a chaotic sea god whom Baal killed and they were all El's kids anyhow. As we have definitive evidence that there was a "backstory" to Yahweh the bible likes to downplay, how can you believe Yahweh ... I am sorry, I forgot ... you don't think the one true God is Yahweh, but Jesus. My mistake. Carry on... [/QUOTE]
Ok...the question I asked, was wether or not anyone could give me reason (or evidence) to believe in man made god's like Apollo or Zeus. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of these man made god's. Instead of copy pasting, I'll give you these links:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/jesus-and-the-pagan-gods
http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review
I'm still not fully fledged in my apologetics, so I must either produce links or copy paste. Though I have been in many debates, I'm not fully efficient quite yet. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not conceding, but merely stating a fact. So I want to add a bit of friendliness to this; I've really been enjoying our little dispute here, and you are definitely a worthy opponent, and one of the smartest people I've ever met. I hope that even though all this, we learn more about the Truth, and each other. So thanks!
[/QUOTE]
Tumah
Veteran Member
PeteC-UK
Active Member
Hi Folks..
ForeverCatholic;
Absolutely correct !! And that is because - amongst many reasons - an obvious truth is apparant if we just read the canon PROPERLY that tells us beyond any doubt at all that it is not, and can not be, a direct testimony given by any first hand witnesses or any person that was there present at the events or even alive themselves when those events actually happened...It is the RELIGION that lead sus to believe that the canon gosples are written by the disciples themselves, but THEY ARE NOT !! It is the RELIGION that places the disciples names upon the canon gospels as if the disciples wrote them themselves - and that is FRAUD - that is DECEPTION - and that alone tells us not to trust that religion !!
WHY did they even need to alter ANYTHING ??????? Ask yourself that honestly....WHY did they MURDER Christ..???? Ask yourself that honestly too...You have been fully deceived - and look there is yet more to come....You say......
NO no no NO !!! Understand here - there is no such thing at all as "Gnostic" ISM - it is NOT - never was - never can be - an "institution" or a "relgion" inthe way that it is presented by YOUR church.....THEY INVENTED IT !!! There is a genuine legitimate pursuit for truth - and that pursuit itself IS gnostic - int hat it seels the LIVING TRUTH directly revealed......But look - there is no "ism" to it - there is no defined structure, dogma doctrine or heriachy -NONE AT ALL - all thos ethings would in fact destroy the endeavour itself , to find LIVING TRUTH OF SELF...
Do you (all) see..???.....To structure it AS a religion or institute is to actually DESTROY the gnosis we seek...Its an absurd idea to think there is a gnostic religon...Absolutely ridiculous notion......The only thing the seeker will get - perhaps - is a truth from an OTHER MAN if he follows such a dictated framework as a religion does....All the seeker will get is SECONDHAND truth - perhaps - but they will never get the LIVING truth DIRECTLY revealed, and thus they will never actually have Gnosis at all.....There is no such thing as a "gnostic religion" - this was an accidental invention BY YOUR CHURCH as they lumped all manner of traditional spiritual practice together, then promply banned them all as herasy and simply murdered anybody who disagreed !!!
Look - EVERYBODY who was NOT catholic - got placed together as the dreaded "gnostic heretic" satans spawn...lol...It didnt matter WHAT your beliefs were - if you were NOT catholic then they called you heretic, hunted you out and KILLED YOU without mercy or compassion....YOUR brethren, took MY brethren and BURNED THEM ALIVE IN PUBLIC, after torturing them for months on end all in the name of your so called "god of love"...HYPOCRASY gave birth to YOUR church.. They MURDERED people in cold blood in the public squares across Europe to scare and shock the masses and so MANIPULATE them into being "good little catholics"....YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED of that religion my friend - not defending it BLINDLY !!
Many MANY people became confused and lost BECAUSE of YOUR RELIGION and its efforts to destroy spiritual truth - to REPLACE legitimate spiritual truth with entirely BOGUS catholic doctrines....See some people - those who are spiritually aware, spiritually honest - those with ears to hear as Christ termed us - have ALWAYS been here even before Christ came with His full explanation, STILL - some knew, even inthe time of Moses - some had that core deep feeling that they were lied to, deceived, and so these always sort out the legitimate truth for themselves...There have ALWAYS been legitimate Gnostics as the legitimate SPIRITUAL truth is ALWAYS delivered thus, spirit TO spirit directly - MIND TO MIND directly - THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF GNOSIS itself - and so we see there can NEVER be a structured religion to acheive this...YOUR religion for example - gives no such DIRECT REVELATION at all - and so is entirely BOGUS in its spiritual truth - all YOU receive is the ideas and thoughts of a MAN, a priest who teaches you and DICTATES to you what it all means !!!
For hundreds and hundreds of years YOUR religion hunted down and murdered any and all who knew legitimate spiritual truth or who dared to stand firm to their own truth and would not bow to their evil agenda..Wholly EVIL - wholly self serving agenda to enforce catholic truth upon the entire western world !!
In that confusion, some tried to make sense by forming "schools of wisdom" - based on much much earlier and legitimate practices...These later schools, modern scholars try to term as a "gnostic religion" - but as I show you now, that is impossible and entirely self defeating to the legitimate gnostic truth, and these later schools came about entirely through the confusion brought about by the catholic war on truth !!
They were an attempt to bridge - old spiritual tradition from Persia and Egypt - you know, the ORIGINAL practices and truths that are now often referred to as the ancient "Mystery School" - and try to incorporate the entirely new catholic religion with its new ENFORCED REGIME.....The result was another religious farce that took truth from many many places and ended up with a conclusion that the one called Yhvh was an evil "demiurge" that was somehow an "enemy" and had created a world as a prison for OUR Souls.....They confused the religious truth with the truth that CHRIST alone gave directly - twisting it yet again - though at least they were far more in line with Christ truth than the catholics ever were, but still, these late forming schools did not understand Him either, though they did at least realise that Yhvh is the WRONG god, not Divine, but their ideas about "evil flesh" and all that - are just yet more RELIGIOUS CONFUSION.......
They had it partly correct - was only partly true...Not so much Yhvh as an enemy - but definately an obstacle to be avoided on the journey HOME - definately a tyrant whos domination must be put aside before truth and legitimate spiritual progress can be known..Yhvh is not our enemy - but it is a "spiritual bully" - a jealous demigod that will try to force you to serve it always - lies and deception are its preferred tools, that is all - know it and be free from it is what Christ ACTUALLY said...Your Soul has NOTHING to fear - but these so called late forming gnostic schools never quite realised that as they never listened to CHRIST but instead swallowed whole chunks of bogus religious confusion and BS, then made it central to all else.. Its easy to see WHY that happened - because simply by that time your catholic religion had already forced itself upon them all and the ONLY truth permitted WAS the catholic truth - so no wonder such confusion was rife....As each new sect formed - your religion and so called god of love hunted them down and simply ERADICATED THEM, destroyed them at every opportunity..
There is NO actual gnostic(ism) AT ALL and to try to even structure or institutionalise it that way , is to absolutely destroy the very thingn we seek...GNOSIS - the LIVING Divine truth DIRECTLY revealed in the PERSONAL COMMUNION....Obviously NO PRIEST - religion - teacher - guru - master - middleman - or intermediary of ANY description is EVER NEEDED....Just YOU seeking the Divine one on one, DIRECTLY - congratulation to those who are ALONE and become chosen, for you are FROM the Kingdom and now You will return their again - as He said to those with ears to hear
ForeverCatholic;
Absolutely correct !! And that is because - amongst many reasons - an obvious truth is apparant if we just read the canon PROPERLY that tells us beyond any doubt at all that it is not, and can not be, a direct testimony given by any first hand witnesses or any person that was there present at the events or even alive themselves when those events actually happened...It is the RELIGION that lead sus to believe that the canon gosples are written by the disciples themselves, but THEY ARE NOT !! It is the RELIGION that places the disciples names upon the canon gospels as if the disciples wrote them themselves - and that is FRAUD - that is DECEPTION - and that alone tells us not to trust that religion !!
WHY did they even need to alter ANYTHING ??????? Ask yourself that honestly....WHY did they MURDER Christ..???? Ask yourself that honestly too...You have been fully deceived - and look there is yet more to come....You say......
NO no no NO !!! Understand here - there is no such thing at all as "Gnostic" ISM - it is NOT - never was - never can be - an "institution" or a "relgion" inthe way that it is presented by YOUR church.....THEY INVENTED IT !!! There is a genuine legitimate pursuit for truth - and that pursuit itself IS gnostic - int hat it seels the LIVING TRUTH directly revealed......But look - there is no "ism" to it - there is no defined structure, dogma doctrine or heriachy -NONE AT ALL - all thos ethings would in fact destroy the endeavour itself , to find LIVING TRUTH OF SELF...
Do you (all) see..???.....To structure it AS a religion or institute is to actually DESTROY the gnosis we seek...Its an absurd idea to think there is a gnostic religon...Absolutely ridiculous notion......The only thing the seeker will get - perhaps - is a truth from an OTHER MAN if he follows such a dictated framework as a religion does....All the seeker will get is SECONDHAND truth - perhaps - but they will never get the LIVING truth DIRECTLY revealed, and thus they will never actually have Gnosis at all.....There is no such thing as a "gnostic religion" - this was an accidental invention BY YOUR CHURCH as they lumped all manner of traditional spiritual practice together, then promply banned them all as herasy and simply murdered anybody who disagreed !!!
Look - EVERYBODY who was NOT catholic - got placed together as the dreaded "gnostic heretic" satans spawn...lol...It didnt matter WHAT your beliefs were - if you were NOT catholic then they called you heretic, hunted you out and KILLED YOU without mercy or compassion....YOUR brethren, took MY brethren and BURNED THEM ALIVE IN PUBLIC, after torturing them for months on end all in the name of your so called "god of love"...HYPOCRASY gave birth to YOUR church.. They MURDERED people in cold blood in the public squares across Europe to scare and shock the masses and so MANIPULATE them into being "good little catholics"....YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED of that religion my friend - not defending it BLINDLY !!
Many MANY people became confused and lost BECAUSE of YOUR RELIGION and its efforts to destroy spiritual truth - to REPLACE legitimate spiritual truth with entirely BOGUS catholic doctrines....See some people - those who are spiritually aware, spiritually honest - those with ears to hear as Christ termed us - have ALWAYS been here even before Christ came with His full explanation, STILL - some knew, even inthe time of Moses - some had that core deep feeling that they were lied to, deceived, and so these always sort out the legitimate truth for themselves...There have ALWAYS been legitimate Gnostics as the legitimate SPIRITUAL truth is ALWAYS delivered thus, spirit TO spirit directly - MIND TO MIND directly - THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF GNOSIS itself - and so we see there can NEVER be a structured religion to acheive this...YOUR religion for example - gives no such DIRECT REVELATION at all - and so is entirely BOGUS in its spiritual truth - all YOU receive is the ideas and thoughts of a MAN, a priest who teaches you and DICTATES to you what it all means !!!
For hundreds and hundreds of years YOUR religion hunted down and murdered any and all who knew legitimate spiritual truth or who dared to stand firm to their own truth and would not bow to their evil agenda..Wholly EVIL - wholly self serving agenda to enforce catholic truth upon the entire western world !!
In that confusion, some tried to make sense by forming "schools of wisdom" - based on much much earlier and legitimate practices...These later schools, modern scholars try to term as a "gnostic religion" - but as I show you now, that is impossible and entirely self defeating to the legitimate gnostic truth, and these later schools came about entirely through the confusion brought about by the catholic war on truth !!
They were an attempt to bridge - old spiritual tradition from Persia and Egypt - you know, the ORIGINAL practices and truths that are now often referred to as the ancient "Mystery School" - and try to incorporate the entirely new catholic religion with its new ENFORCED REGIME.....The result was another religious farce that took truth from many many places and ended up with a conclusion that the one called Yhvh was an evil "demiurge" that was somehow an "enemy" and had created a world as a prison for OUR Souls.....They confused the religious truth with the truth that CHRIST alone gave directly - twisting it yet again - though at least they were far more in line with Christ truth than the catholics ever were, but still, these late forming schools did not understand Him either, though they did at least realise that Yhvh is the WRONG god, not Divine, but their ideas about "evil flesh" and all that - are just yet more RELIGIOUS CONFUSION.......
They had it partly correct - was only partly true...Not so much Yhvh as an enemy - but definately an obstacle to be avoided on the journey HOME - definately a tyrant whos domination must be put aside before truth and legitimate spiritual progress can be known..Yhvh is not our enemy - but it is a "spiritual bully" - a jealous demigod that will try to force you to serve it always - lies and deception are its preferred tools, that is all - know it and be free from it is what Christ ACTUALLY said...Your Soul has NOTHING to fear - but these so called late forming gnostic schools never quite realised that as they never listened to CHRIST but instead swallowed whole chunks of bogus religious confusion and BS, then made it central to all else.. Its easy to see WHY that happened - because simply by that time your catholic religion had already forced itself upon them all and the ONLY truth permitted WAS the catholic truth - so no wonder such confusion was rife....As each new sect formed - your religion and so called god of love hunted them down and simply ERADICATED THEM, destroyed them at every opportunity..
There is NO actual gnostic(ism) AT ALL and to try to even structure or institutionalise it that way , is to absolutely destroy the very thingn we seek...GNOSIS - the LIVING Divine truth DIRECTLY revealed in the PERSONAL COMMUNION....Obviously NO PRIEST - religion - teacher - guru - master - middleman - or intermediary of ANY description is EVER NEEDED....Just YOU seeking the Divine one on one, DIRECTLY - congratulation to those who are ALONE and become chosen, for you are FROM the Kingdom and now You will return their again - as He said to those with ears to hear
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
Such as those who wrote it, lived it, and demonstrated it. If you don't believe the bible, try studying early Church history for a fuller understanding.
You must have misunderstood or never read this history. It had nothing whatever to do with military recruiting. Constantine already had a battle-ready army.
What political manipulation?
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
To insert a quote by another poster into your post, highlight the text you want to quote, and then release the left mouse button. Then a little box comes up that says " + Quote | Reply ." Click on "Reply," and the highlighted text will pop into where you are writing your post, and it will have "QUOTE="SoldierofChrist, post: 4981154, member: 61075" (with the respective username and numbers} in brackets in front of it and "/QUOTE" in brackets at the at the end of it. Then, you just type what you have to say directly under the quote.
The quote will appear at the top if you have no text in your reply yet, but if you are replying to multiple quotes, take note of where the cursor is in the post you're working on, because that's where the next quote will be inserted. If you have made some change in the middle of a paragraph and then go and select something else to quote, that one will pop right into what you just wrote. I try to remember to make sure the cursor is at the end of what I last wrote and then hit the enter key to move down to the next line before selecting another quote.
In a post with multiple quotes, it's a good idea to preview the post before submitting the reply by clicking on "More Options" below your text and then clicking on "Preview" at the bottom of the next page that comes up.
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
There is truth and substance in your posts. I think you're doing quite well, and I'm glad you're doing it. There are too few active members in these forums who are solid in their faith. In fact, many have no faith at all, or are in opposition to faith. So of course people will disagree with you, from atheists to the devout members of other faiths, but it's still a good exercise for sharpening your skills, and developing even deeper understandings. As I hope for myself also, maybe now and then you will say something that sinks in enough to draw someone closer to God.
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
"Read the canon properly," you say, meaning to read it for the purpose of redefining and/or disputing and/or rejecting it. To think that the Messiah came to earth and established a Church, only to have that very Church betray him by hiding or distorting his truth, is not even logical. It is not possible either, that the Church or the Romans or even Satan could have done that. To believe otherwise is to believe that creatures have greater power than the Creator.
Here's a very brief history of Catholic doctrine:
Jesus established the Catholic Church
Catholics preached and taught what Jesus had taught them and wrote the books of the New Testament
The Catholic Church very carefully preserved these teachings from generation to generation.
The bottom line is that our Lord's truth remains forever in the Catholic Church. People have always had a free will to disbelieve; to leave the Church and form their own theologies. But with or without Satan's lying influence, they only deceive themselves and then they teach others the same false concepts.
Last edited:
Oh, that is cool. Which one do you want me to address first? I think Kalam looks nowadays more like a dead horse, so do you have another preference? Of course you can still choose Kalam if you still find it convincing. By the way, Kalam, like most of the others, do not say anything about Jesus. So, I am not sure what you mean with overwhelming evidence for Christianity. Not to speak of the Pascal Wager, of course. Puzzling that it is still there in the list.
But I am surprised that you do not see the fallacy of your reasoning. If you had really convincing evidence of Christianity, then this evidence must be in the form of typical Christian things. Not evidence of a general idea of God, which would not be evidence of Christianity, but evidence of a general idea that might be applicable for Allah, Apollo, Zeus, etc. I don't know, i think I would expect evidence of Christian miraculous events like mysteriously empty tombs, walking on water, amazing prophecies, resurrections and stuff.
And if you had this Christian evidence, which would not only be indicative of a God, but also indicative of your God, why do you need additional support from arguments that have nothing to do with a God in particular?
It would be like going through complicated cosmological and statistical arguments to prove that there are planets supporting life when there is a pretty huge one under your feet.
I am sorry, but the only logical explanation is that the so called targetted evidence for Christianity, or any other particular faith, is not sufficient and you guys need additional help, in the form of general arguments like Kalam, Pascal, or whatever. But then, even if you manage to justify your faith in a general God, how can you possibly justify your faith for that particular flavor of God?
In other words: evidence of Christianity would also be evidence of God. But not the other way round.
But you guys appeal to the other way round a lot, as my homework indicates. Which is puzzling, if you really had evidence of the more specific claim.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
SoldierofChrist
Member
Oh boy... typical Atheist here. Avoids the challenge and goes of on a tangent. It's only common sense to believe in God. It's called 'Natural' apologetics to defend that position. Then there's Christian, And Catholic. As I've said many, many times, I've given evidence to support Christianity, and I will again. Which argument do I want you to start out with? It's your choice lol. Whichever one out of the 20 haha. I gave you the link. Now do the work. If you need further reason to believe in Christianity specifically, go to these many links. Debunk them too
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/jesus-and-the-pagan-gods
http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review
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.
Oh, and you didn't answer practically any of my questions either. They were pretty simple...
SoldierofChrist
Member
And thanks for all the encouragement Forever Catholic! I needed it! God bless you my fellow Catholic brother in Christ
Oh boy... typical Atheist here. Avoids the challenge and goes of on a tangent. It's only common sense to believe in God. It's called 'Natural' apologetics to defend that position. Then there's Christian, And Catholic. As I've said many, many times, I've given evidence to support Christianity, and I will again. Which argument do I want you to start out with? It's your choice lol. Whichever one out of the 20 haha. I gave you the link. Now do the work. If you need further reason to believe in Christianity specifically, go to these many links. Debunk them too
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/jesus-and-the-pagan-gods
http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review
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.
Oh, and you didn't answer practically any of my questions either. They were pretty simple...
Well, if you were coherent you should remove all so called proofs of a general God and restrict your evidence to Jesus and Dad related proofs. So, let's focus on Jesus and check what evidence you have.
Assuming, of course, that you believe that these Jesus related evidence covers all the more generic arguments to such an extent to make them superflous.
By the way, is that the same evidence that so clearly proves that a wafer turns in the body of a 2000 years old God when a male dressed up funny whispers some latin words on it?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
SoldierofChrist
Member
Well, if you were coherent you should remove all so called proofs of a general God and restrict your evidence to Jesus and Dad related proofs. So, let's focus on Jesus and check what evidence you have.
Assuming, of course, that you believe that these Jesus related evidence covers all the more generic arguments to such an extent to make them superflous.
By the way, is that the same evidence that so clearly proves that a wafer turns in the body of a 2000 years God when a male dressed up funny whispers some latin words on it?
Ciao
- viole
I my gosh bub...the way your running away is kind of funny to be honest. Not bringing any arguments, evidence or rational reason to make me believe your accurate and correct. This...is beautiful. Anyways, I guess I'll have to copy paste the arguments AGAIN. It's such a pain to do this, but if it'll shut you up haha, its worth it.
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.
Stand by for more...
SoldierofChrist
Member
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.
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.
SoldierofChrist
Member
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.
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!
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
Member
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:
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
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:
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
SoldierofChrist
Member
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.
Endnotes
1 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.
2 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 188-91.
3 Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77), 2: 519-20.
4 See discussion in Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), chap. 8.
5 Ibid., chaps. 4-5.
6 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189.
7 William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), p. 222.
8 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), p. 56.
9 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 159.
10 Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993): 18, 34.
11 Johnson, Real Jesus, p. 125.
12 Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape.
13 Leander Keck, "The Second Coming of the Liberal Jesus?" Christian Century (August, 1994), p. 786.
14 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 177.
15 John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 131.
16 Jakob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49-50.
17 D. H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972), p. 41.
18 Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.
19 C. F. D. Moule and Don Cupitt, "The Resurrection: a Disagreement," Theology 75 (1972): 507-19.
20 Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (London: SPCK, 1983).
That leads me, then, to my first major contention, namely:
(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:
Jesus' burialthe discovery of his empty tombhis post-mortem appearancesthe origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection.
Now, let's look at that first contention more closely. I want to share four facts which are widely accepted by historians today.
Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:
1. Jesus' burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.
We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus' burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus' crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus' burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus' burial, some of which are extraordinarily early
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.
Endnotes
1 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.
2 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 188-91.
3 Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77), 2: 519-20.
4 See discussion in Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), chap. 8.
5 Ibid., chaps. 4-5.
6 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189.
7 William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), p. 222.
8 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), p. 56.
9 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 159.
10 Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993): 18, 34.
11 Johnson, Real Jesus, p. 125.
12 Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape.
13 Leander Keck, "The Second Coming of the Liberal Jesus?" Christian Century (August, 1994), p. 786.
14 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 177.
15 John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 131.
16 Jakob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49-50.
17 D. H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972), p. 41.
18 Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.
19 C. F. D. Moule and Don Cupitt, "The Resurrection: a Disagreement," Theology 75 (1972): 507-19.
20 Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (London: SPCK, 1983).
That leads me, then, to my first major contention, namely:
(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:
Jesus' burialthe discovery of his empty tombhis post-mortem appearancesthe origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection.
Now, let's look at that first contention more closely. I want to share four facts which are widely accepted by historians today.
Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:
1. Jesus' burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.
We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus' burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus' crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus' burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus' burial, some of which are extraordinarily early