How can you literally believe...

[SoldierofChrist]

2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus' burial by Joseph is "very probable," since it is "almost inexplicable" why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. [1]

For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is "one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus." [2]

Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark's source didn't end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it's also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2:29; 13:36); and it's implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor 15:4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

2. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren't even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."[3]

Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons:

1. Paul's list of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred.

Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, "he appeared also to me," at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (1 Cor 15:5-8). Given the early date of Paul's information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends.

2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances.

For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." [4] Finally,

Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus' crucifixion:

1. Their leader was dead.

And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel's enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.

2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, "Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was." [5] And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." [6]

In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus' burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection.

Now in his early published work Dr. Ehrman expressed skepticism about these facts. He insisted that we cannot really affirm these facts. [7] Why not? Well, he gave two reasons:

First, he said, historians cannot say that a miracle probably occurred. But here he was obviously confusing the evidence for the resurrection with the best explanation of the evidence. The resurrection of Jesus is a miraculous explanation of the evidence. But the evidence itself is not miraculous. None of these four facts is any way supernatural or inaccessible to the historian. To give an analogy, did you know that after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, there was actually a plot to steal his body as it was being transported by train back to Illinois? Now the historian will obviously want to know whether this plot was foiled or not. Was Lincoln's body missing from the train? Was it successfully interred in the tomb in Springfield? Did his closest associates like Secretary of War Stanton or Vice-President Johnson claim to have seen appearances of Lincoln alive after his death, and so on? These are questions any historian can investigate. And it's the same with the four facts about Jesus.

But Professor Ehrman had a second reason why he thought the historian cannot affirm these facts: the Gospel accounts of these events are hopelessly contradictory. But the problem with this line of argument is that it assumes three things:

(i) that the inconsistencies are irresolvable rather than merely apparent;

(ii) that the inconsistencies lie at the heart of the narrative rather than just in the secondary, peripheral details; and

(iii) that all of the accounts have an equal claim to historical reliability, since the presence of inconsistencies in a later, less reliable source does nothing to undermine the credibility of an earlier, more credible source.

In fact, when you look at the supposed inconsistencies, what you find is that most of them -- like the names and number of the women who visited the tomb -- are merely apparent, not real. Moreover, the alleged inconsistencies are found in the secondary, circumstantial details of the story and have no effect at all on the four facts as I've stated them.

So most historians haven't been deterred by these sorts of objections. And in fact Dr. Ehrman has himself come to re-think his position on these issues. Inconsistencies in the details notwithstanding, he now recognizes that we have "solid traditions," not only for Jesus' burial, but also for the women's discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with "some certainty" that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb and that three days later the tomb was found empty. [8]

When I discovered that Professor Ehrman had reversed himself on this question, my admiration for his honesty and scholarly objectivity shot up. Very few scholars, once they've gone into print on an issue, have the courage to re-think that issue and admit that they were wrong. Dr. Ehrman's reversal of his opinion on these matters is testimony, not merely to the force of the evidence for these four facts, but also to his determination to follow the evidence wherever it leads. What this means is that my first contention is not an issue of disagreement in tonight's debate. The whole debate will therefore turn upon Dr. Ehrman's response to my second contention, namely:

(II) The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however, none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts. Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts.

So why, we may ask, does Dr. Ehrman not accept the resurrection as the best explanation? The answer is simple: the resurrection is a miracle, and Dr. Ehrman denies the possibility of establishing a miracle. He writes, "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred." [9] This argument against the identification of a miracle is an old one, already refuted in the 18th century by such eminent scholars as William Paley and George Campbell, and is rejected as fallacious by most contemporary philosophers as well. Now I've promised to say more about this later; but for now, let me simply say that in the absence of some naturalistic explanation of the facts, Dr. Ehrman's hesitancy about embracing the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation is really quite unnecessary. Dr. Ehrman would be quite within his rational rights to embrace a miraculous explanation like the resurrection -- and so would we.

In conclusion, then, I think that there is good historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Specifically, I've staked out two basic contentions for discussion tonight:

I. There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

Jesus' burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the very origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection, and

II. The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead

 

[SoldierofChrist]

PHEW! Ok...time for the next part. This is my parting blow.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

. The Argument from Change

The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.

As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."

Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

Question 1: Why do we need an uncaused cause? Why could there not simply be an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being?

Reply: This is an attractive hypothesis. Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them—if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand.

This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.

Question 2: Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be—even though their causes might no longer exist.

Reply: First, if the kalam argument (argument 6) is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now.

Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now, exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist—and neither would you. Imagine that the entire universe consists of you and the seven sustaining you. If there is nothing besides that universe of changing, dependent things, then the universe—and you as part of it—could not be. For everything that is would right now need to be given being but there would be nothing capable of giving it. And yet you are and it is. So there must in that case exist something besides the universe of dependent things—something not dependent as they are.

And if it must exist in that case, it must exist in this one. In our world there are surely more than seven things that need, right now, to be given being. But that need is not diminished by there being more than seven. As we imagine more and more of them—even an infinite number, if that were possible—we are simply expanding the set of beings that stand in need. And this need—for being, for existence—cannot be met from within the imagined set. But obviously it has been met, since contingent beings exist. Therefore there is a source of being on which our material universe right now depends.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

. The Argument from Change

The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.

As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."

Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

Question 1: Why do we need an uncaused cause? Why could there not simply be an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being?

Reply: This is an attractive hypothesis. Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them—if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand.

This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.

Question 2: Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be—even though their causes might no longer exist.

Reply: First, if the kalam argument (argument 6) is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now.

Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now, exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist—and neither would you. Imagine that the entire universe consists of you and the seven sustaining you. If there is nothing besides that universe of changing, dependent things, then the universe—and you as part of it—could not be. For everything that is would right now need to be given being but there would be nothing capable of giving it. And yet you are and it is. So there must in that case exist something besides the universe of dependent things—something not dependent as they are.

And if it must exist in that case, it must exist in this one. In our world there are surely more than seven things that need, right now, to be given being. But that need is not diminished by there being more than seven. As we imagine more and more of them—even an infinite number, if that were possible—we are simply expanding the set of beings that stand in need. And this need—for being, for existence—cannot be met from within the imagined set. But obviously it has been met, since contingent beings exist. Therefore there is a source of being on which our material universe right now depends.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

The Argument from Time and Contingency

We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.Then right now nothing would exist. ForIf the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. ButFrom nothing nothing comes. SoThe universe could not have begun.But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. ButIf in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. SoThere must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.This absolutely necessary being is God.

Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence?

Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built-in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called "necessary."

4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

We notice around us things that vary in certain ways. A shade of color, for example, can be lighter or darker than another, a freshly baked apple pie is hotter than one taken out of the oven hours before; the life of a person who gives and receives love is better than the life of one who does not.

So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least. For example, we think of the lighter as approaching the brightness of pure white, and the darker as approaching the opacity of pitch black. This means that we think of them at various "distances" from the extremes, and as possessing, in degrees of "more" or "less," what the extremes possess in full measure.

Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between "more" and "less." For example, things are more or less hot when they are more or less distant from a source of heat. The source communicates to those things the quality of heat they possess in greater or lesser measure. This means that the degree of heat they possess is caused by a source outside of them.

Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings. We believe, for example, that a relatively stable and permanent way of being is better than one that is fleeting and precarious. Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing. And so we recognize the inherent superiority of all those ways of being that expand possibilities, free us from the constricting confines of matter, and allow us to share in, enrich and be enriched by, the being of other things. In other words, we all recognize that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being; that a being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot; that our way of being is better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal.

But if these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "best," a source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings.

This absolutely perfect being—the "Being of all beings," "the Perfection of all perfections"—is God.

Question 1: The argument assumes a real "better." But aren't all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective?

Reply: The very asking of this question answers it. For the questioner would not have asked it unless he or she thought it really better to do so than not, and really better to find the true answer than not. You can speak subjectivism but you cannot live it.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

The Design Argument

This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer, to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.Not chance.Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.Design comes only from a mind, a designer.Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

The first premise is certainly true-even those resistant to the argument admit it. The person who did not would have to be almost pathetically obtuse. A single protein molecule is a thing of immensely impressive order; much more so a single cell; and incredibly much more so an organ like the eye, where ordered parts of enormous and delicate complexity work together with countless others to achieve a single certain end. Even chemical elements are ordered to combine with other elements in certain ways and under certain conditions. Apparent disorder is a problem precisely because of the overwhelming pervasiveness of order and regularity. So the first premise stands.

If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened." Things just fell out that way "by chance." Alternatively, if all this order is not the product of blind, purposeless forces, then it has resulted from some kind of purpose. That purpose can only be intelligent design. So the second premise stands.

It is of course the third premise that is crucial. Ultimately, nonbelievers tell us, it is indeed by chance and not by any design that the universe of our experience exists the way it does. It just happens to have this order, and the burden of proof is on believers to demonstrate why this could not be so by chance alone.

But this seems a bit backward. It is surely up to nonbelievers to produce a credible alternative to design. And "chance" is simply not credible. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate and ubiquitous order-against a random and purposeless background of chance. Frankly, that is incredible. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance, and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design.

Question 1: Hasn't the Darwinian theory of evolution shown us how it is possible for all the order in the universe to have arisen by chance?

Reply: Not at all. If the Darwinian theory has shown anything, it has shown, in a general way, how species may have descended from others through random mutation; and how survival of these species can be accounted for by natural selection—by the fitness of some species to survive in their environment. In no way does it—can it—account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature. Rather, it presupposes order. To quote a famous phrase: "The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit." If Darwinians wish to extrapolate from their purely biological theory and maintain that all the vast order around us is the result of random changes, then they are saying something which no empirical evidence could ever confirm; which no empirical science could ever demonstrate; and which, on the face of it, is simply beyond belief.

Question 2: Maybe it is only in this region of the universe that order is to be found. Maybe there are other parts unknown to us that are completely chaotic—or maybe the universe will one day in the future become chaotic. What becomes of the argument then?

Reply: Believers and nonbelievers both experience the same universe. It is this which is either designed or not. And this world of our common experience is a world of pervasive order and intelligibility. That fact must be faced. Before we speculate about what will be in the future or what may be elsewhere in the present, we need to deal honestly with what is. We need to recognize in an unflinching way the extent—the overwhelming extent—of order and intelligibility. Then we can ask ourselves: Is it credible to suppose that we inhabit a small island of order surrounded by a vast sea of chaos—a sea which threatens one day to engulf us?

Just consider how in the last decades we have strained fantastically at the limits of our knowledge; we have cast our vision far beyond this planet and far within the elements that make it up. And what has this expansion of our horizons revealed? Always the same thing: more—and not less—intelligibility; more—and not less—complex and intricate order. Not only is there no reason to believe in a surrounding chaos, there is every reason not to. It flies in the face of the experience that all of us—believers and nonbelievers—share in common.

Something similar can be said about the future. We know the way things in the universe have behaved and are behaving. And so, until we have some reason to think otherwise, there is every reason to believe it will continue on its orderly path of running down. No speculation can nullify what we know.

And, anyway, exactly what sort of chaos is this question asking us to imagine? That effect precedes cause? That the law of contradiction does not hold? That there need not be what it takes for some existing thing to exist? These suggestions are completely unintelligible; if we think about them at all, it is only to reject them as impossible. Can we imagine less order? Yes. Some rearrangement of the order we experience? Yes. But total disorder and chaos? That can never be considered as a real possibility. To speculate about it as if it were is really a waste of time.

Question 3: But what if the order we experience is merely a product of our minds? Even though we cannot think utter chaos and disorder, maybe that is how reality really is.

Reply: Our minds are the only means by which we can know reality. We have no other access. If we agree that something cannot exist in thought, we cannot go ahead and say that it might nevertheless exist in reality. Because then we would be thinking what we claim cannot be thought.

Suppose you claim that order is just a product of our minds. This puts you in a very awkward position. You are saying that we must think about reality in terms of order and intelligibility, but things may not exist that way in fact. Now to propose something for consideration is to think about it. And so you are saying: (a) we must think about reality in a certain way, but (b) since we think that things may not in fact exist that way, then (c) we need not think about reality the way we must think about it! Are we willing to pay that high a price to deny that the being of the universe displays intelligent design? It does not, on the face of it, seem cost effective.

 

[viole]

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!

These are all nice things written in a book, you know? You expect me to believe this just because it is written in a book? By the way, I am sure that most fiction books have some historic reliability, unless they are pure science fiction. Maybe King Arthur existed too, but that does not entail that the claims about the powers of Excalibur are true. Just because someone said or wrote so.

Ok. Let me start this, since your arguments are too fuzzy. Let's assume your books are reliable. Can you explain why the disciples were surprised, or even initially skeptical, after the first reports of Jesus alleged resurrection?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Ok I gave you 5 out of 20 arguments. That SHOULD be good enough for now.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

ForeverCatholic;

"Read the canon properly," you say, meaning to read it for the purpose of redefining and/or disputing and/or rejecting it.

Hmm - no - not necassarily - though that is the conclusion you will inevitably reach IF and WHEN you do in fact read it properly. I mean precisely - READ IT AS IT IS WRITTEN - the language structure and composition itself mainly -tells us beyond any doubt that the author is speaking about SOMEONE ELSE and is not relaying events that the author themselves partook in or witnessed directly...The actual words used and logic they present tell us undeniably that is is NOT the disciple themself writing... This has nothing to do with my agenda - or yours - but everythng to do with logic and TRUTH - and as said, that truth IS undeniable going by the logic of the things the canon says - look - there is even a clear statement that explains this at the end of EACH of those four canon gospels...I already showed you two - looks like you think you can ignore obvious truth and hope it goes away, but you cannot as Im now going to show you again ALL FOUR canon endings and each one will PROVE to you that it is NOT the disciple themself writing....
.LOOK - here first then is your CANON Mark - look closely..

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,a]">[a] the Son of God,b]">[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

Thats the opening verse of Mark.. Things to note then - there is NO AUTHOR STATED...It does NOT say it is Mark writing does it..??...And that applies as said to ALL the canon version - NO AUTHORS CLAIM THEIR BOOKS !!! It does not even state who is writing does it..??...IT IS NOT MARK WRITING - not at all, as Im about to prove to you using the canon version itself ....This person writing here is an unknown scholar - one of Eusibius team of scholars...It doesnt even pretend to be Mark...lol.....He does NOT c,lain it ANYWHERE, and all the way through it is written in the 3rd person perspective as if the author speaksof SOMEONE ELSE - and then right at the end we see clear admission it is not Mark or ANY disciple writing ...LOOK at the last paragraph :

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

The writer here is NOT AMONG THE DISCIPLES !! he says THEY went out to preach as instructed...NOT I - the writer does not say "I went out as instructed" - does he..?...NO - but clearly -THEY the disciples went preaching as it says but undeniably this author writing this account here DID NOT go with them, and that is because this writer is NOT one of the disciples !!! Similarly, it says the Lord worked with THEM - but again it does not say the Lord worked with "me" - does it..??...So again we see THIS writer was not even among the group that the Lord "worked with" - and again this is clearly because this writer here is NOT ONE OF THE DISCIPLES and by his own words all the way through we see it clearly and undeniably....The writer here does not even claim to be Mark at all - at no place - and yet your church authority tries to pass this off as authentic first hand account which it clearly is NOT and that is beyond logical dispute....The other three canon versions will only strengthen my position and show us yet more undeniable logical proof....Lets continue then - Mark out the way, NOT written by Mark at all but written by an UNKNOWN AUTHOR clearly stated the author was NOT a disciple - how about LUKE..??..Lets see....

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilleda]">[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

This author also is clearly NOT the disciple Luke that it is claimed to be....Clearly admitted - follow the logic - the things recorded here have been PASSED DOWN to the author - means for sure beyond question this author is not the ORIGINAL giver of this narrative but is merely repeating things he has been told by others !! THIS AUTHOR is NOT an eye witness at all to either Christ or disciple - clearly stated and undeniable..That is because again THIS author here is another scribe from Eusibius team and this canon version is being manufactured here - he is ACTUALLY writing here - like 350 years AFTER the events - hence the author here says explicitly this has been "handed down" to him.....Do try to let it sink in - and perhaps admit finally - you have been fully deceived by your "catholic authority".... see yet another clear admission at the END of this canon version also - look :

50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

Ok - it says when Christ led THEM to Bethany - yes..??....the author here writing DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE AMONG THEM - does he..???...It does not say "Christ led US" - it does NOT say "Christ led ME" - it does CLEARLY say though He led THEM - and that tells us beyond any logical doubt - once again -THIS author is not even present as this happens... It says Christ blessed THEM - but this author received no such blessing did he..?..he doesnt claim it doe she..?? - doesnt say "Christ blessed US " - doesnt say "Christ blessed ME" - and again we see this author received no such blessing at all and that is because THIS author WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT and is not the disciple Luke at all... Likewise the legitimate disciples it says then went on to Jerusalem and the temple - but again we see THIS author was not among THEM as he himself states clearly... The author does NOT claim to go to Jerusalem with the disciples - does NOT say "WE went" - does not say "I went" - but again clearly states THEY went and so we see again no way is THIS author among the group of disciples....Sorry my friend - but they HAVE DECEIVED YOU and still continue to do so even to this day....Two down two to go - and thus far thats two counts of FRAUD and DECEPTION for the catholic authority who pass this off as legitimate disicple testimony......The othter two just show more of the same...LOOK - here is Matthew also :

1 This is the genealogya]">[a] of Jesus the Messiahb]">[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Oh look - yet again - they conveniantly forget to give us an AUTHOR..!! Maybe Im blind - can you show me WHERE does it say this is even Matthew writing..??....CAN you show it..?..AT ALL..??? No..?....Ok - Im just going to carry on as I already know you can NOT show me as it is NOT Matthew writing, so my question is rhetorical - want to get you thinking because look - I will show you how it is NOT Matthew writing....Its OBVIOUS really...Lets go look at the closing statement - its always a dead giveaway :

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Again see clearly and take not this author writing this is NOT A DISCIPLE clearly stated and logicaslly undeniable by the words themselves !!

Then THE ELEVEN disciples went to Gallilee ( Judas the 12th has already topped himself here) - the author here does NOT include himself among them - does he..?..NO - the 11 went where Christ had told THEM to go....Again we see logically undeniably - this author writing received no such instruction from Christ, does not even claim to have received that instruction and does NOT include hismelf as among the disciples EVER.. the author goes on to say that when THEY saw Him THEY worshipped Him again the author does NOT claim any of this about himself does he..???....The author does not claim to either go with the disciples, nor does he claim to meet Christ with the other disciples, nor does he claim to worship as they did either....!!!

And that IS because this author writing canon Mathew here - as with all four canon version - are simply NOT THE DISCIPLES THEMSELVES - that is UNDENIABLe - as said read it indeed PROPERLY - keep the context and sense, allow the structure and grammer to do its work and present the LOGICAL TRUTH to your mind...the canon is a FRAUD claiming to be direct first hand testimony - it is DECEPTION claiming to be original truth from disciple as given by Christ - it is a TWISTING of truth, and it is done ON PURPOSE to keep you ignorant...

Johns CANON version is exactly the same process ...Look, it starts:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

Note yet again Folks - NO AUTHOR cares to place his name and state who is writing...It remains anonymous all the way throughout - and the ending is thus :

20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

So I gave you a bit longer quote there to show you the context..Christ and Peter are discussing ANOTHER DISCIPLE who it is assumed wrote THIS canon version of John...NOBODY KNOWS WHO this disciple ACTUALLY is, as he is NOT mentioned by name directly. - All we know is that this disciple is "whom Chriost loved" and we know this disciple they discussed asked Christ directly who would betray Him...That is ALL we know of the ORIGINAL DISCIPLE author, and form that we can infer perhaps it is John ORIGINALLY....

But look -THIS author here writing the canon, is just RETELLING all that - this IS NOT JOHN or ANY DISCIPLE writing here -and again we know that BECAUSE of the things he says and the way he says them...Look - the author here says he is taking things from THAT DISCIPLE (whom Christ loved and who had asked Christ directly about betrayal).. The author here does NOT CLAIM TO BE JOHN or ANY disciple at all - clearly stated when he says THAT DISCIPLE wrote all this down FIRST and we are now retelling the things we think may be true !!!

 

[PeteC-UK]

Now - I have made a very specific and quite crucial point - the CANON HAS NO AUTHOR THAT CLAIMS IT !!! NONE of them have authors who dar eot state who they are !! We havent got a clue WHO is actually writing there but it IS NOT ANY of the disciples proven beyond any logical doubt at all !!! Look - it IS true - I showed you opening lines all four gospels - NO AUTHORS place their names there do they..??...Thats IS because these authors writing this canon are actually anonymous scribes, and the last paragraph of each blatantly shows this as undeniably true !! They ARE scholars working for that man Eusibius, and this is being done AFTER Nicea and Constantines direct intervention...... As I have proven, this group of scholars are sifting through over 1000 PRE EXISTANT MANUSCRIPTS and from them all they will MANUFACTURE your canon versions..AMONG those ORIGINAL manuscripts, we find the ORIGINAL DISCIPLE GOSPELS !!! And look now I will show you the crucial point - these ORIGINAL disciple gospels ARE FULLY CLAIMED BY THEIR AUTHORS !!!

Look - here for example is the ORIGINAL gospel of John...We can see straight away WHO IS WRITING - it tells clearly and undeniably JOHN HIMSELF CLAIMS TO BE WRITING - LOOK :

One day, I John, the brother of James, the sons of Zebedee, was going up to the Temple. A Pharisee by the name of Arimanios came up to him and challenged him, asking: "Where is the teacher you used to follow?"

I replied, "He has gone back to the place from which he came."

The Pharisee said, "That Nazarene misled you (plural), told you lies, closed your hearts and turned you away from your ancestral traditions.”

When I heard these things, I, John, turned away from the temple and went off to a deserted mountainous place.

See how much more LEGITIMATE that testimony is..???...FIRST HAND and DIRECT - it IS JOHN writing of things HE HIMSELF experienced !!! Your canon cannot claim anything like !! All the ORIGINAL gospels are the same..Here is Thomas :

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

Yet again another DIRECT TESTIMONY - from the LIVING CHRIST - recorded DIRECTLY by Thomas His DISCIPLE !! Yet again -far more LEGITIMATE than any authorless bible canon

Judas starts :

The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with I, Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover.

Oh look - ANOTHER FIRST HAND ACCOUNT - SECRETS that Christ spoke in DIRECT CONVERSATION to Judas - even tells us WHEN the conversation occurs...read it - it is the TRUTH of the event the religion calls the "Last Super"

Nearly all the disciples wrote their own gospels - on the road as they travelled with Christ...Where we still have the first pages of these gospels they ALL claim the author right at the start...Peter also follows this legitimate approach :

As the Savior was sitting in the temple in the three hundredth (year) of the covenant and the agreement of the tenth pillar, and being satisfied with the number of the living, incorruptible Majesty, he said to me, "Peter, blessed are those above belonging to the Father,

See clearly stated - time - place and the DIRECT TESTIMONY of the Disciple Peter who is PRESENT face to face with Christ....Again - no bible canon can match THIS authenticity - can it..??... Alas most of the other ORIGINAL gospels are all but lost to us, and we have no opening pages for Mary or Philip for example and only incomplete testimony NOW -and look - this IS a direct result of the catholic religion with its incessant and brutal war on spiritual truth !! It LITERALLY hunted down these books and all those others - as said over 1000 ORIGINAL manuscripts were considered SACRED - and this religion destroyed them all and REPLACED them with bogus "catholic versions" the world over...They did this for literally 1500 years and it is from THAT foundation that all modern historians work...The catholics literally DICTATED HISTORY and hs full control over ALL ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE - and thus ensured that THEIR version is indeed the ONLY version allowed - everybody who disagreed - all those who had legitimate spiritual truth - hunted down -TORTURED - MURDERED in cold blood to ENFORCE their catholic truth as ONLY truth permitted !!!

Everything I say here is legitimate truth...the canon is an outright deception - a fraud that was forced upon the world as the only permitted religious truth.....It IS a twisted truth to suit an agenda for domination and it IS MANUFACTURED to suit that purpose...It has NO AUTHORS who come forward to claim theirwork, and that is because it is not even written BY the disciples as claimed, but is put together near FOUR CENTURIES LATER !!! Other ORIGINAL gospels DO exist - are indeed CLAMED BY THE DISCIPLES DIRECTLY - and it is from these ORIGINALS and many others, that they twist your bible canon version and present it to you as the only truth permitted...To close the trap on you (all) they then banned everything else as herasy and simply MURDERED any and all who opposed them.....You HAVE been deceived - fully so....Heres hoping you (all) can start to see that now..........

 

[viole]

Ok I gave you 5 out of 20 arguments. That SHOULD be good enough for now.

Yes, but I find the initial skepticism of the 12 as a clear evidence of a fictional work. And a pretty poor one.

Do you have a rational explanation for it? How would you sell it to someone who never heard of Christianity before?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SoldierofChrist]

These are all nice things written in a book, you know? You expect me to believe this just because it is written in a book? By the way, I am sure that most fiction books have some historic reliability, unless they are pure science fiction. Maybe King Arthur existed too, but that does not entail that the claims about the powers of Excalibur are true. Just because someone said do.

Ok. Let me start this, since your arguments are too fuzzy. Let's assume your books are reliable. Can you explain why the disciples were surprised, or even initially skeptical, after the first reports of Jesus alleged resurrection?

Ciao

- viole

Woa...man, your still not debunking them. The disciples were surprised because they thought Jesus was dead lol. They lost their faith until he came back. I have a question for you too; How can you reject something, that has so much historical evidence to prove it actually happened? My Resurrection argument has said historical evidence along with the general life of Jesus as well. Why not believe in other things, like the Buddhists religion that has a good amount of evidence to prove Buddha actually existed? Because the Christian side has proof of Jesus's Godhood. No other religion does. No evidence in that area. Only vague claims. Nothing more. So please, if your so inclined, debunk the arguments, don't just complain about them and use your own opinion. Please...

 

[viole]

Woa...man, your still not debunking them. The disciples were surprised because they thought Jesus was dead lol. They lost their faith until he came back. I have a question for you too; How can you reject something, that has so much historical evidence to prove it actually happened? My Resurrection argument has said historical evidence along with the general life of Jesus as well. Why not believe in other things, like the Buddhists religion that has a good amount of evidence to prove Buddha actually existed? Because the Christian side has proof of Jesus's Godhood. No other religion does. No evidence in that area. Only vague claims. Nothing more. So please, if your so inclined, debunk the arguments, don't just complain about them and use your own opinion. Please...

Well, but Jesus said in your book that He would die and return the third day, didn't He?

Didn't they believe Him? Not even after those strolls on water and resurrecting people from death (e.g. lazarus)? It seems everything happened according to His prophecy. So what prevented them to give Him the benefit of the doubt and wait a bit? I don't know, at least one week.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Well, but Jesus said in your book that He would die and return the third day, didn't He?

Didn't they believe Him? Not even after those strolls on water and resurrecting people from death (e.g. lazarus)? It seems everything happened according to His prophecy. So what prevented them to give Him the benefit of the doubt and wait a bit? I don't know, at least one week.

Ciao

- viole

Your going there now? Man, your ARE desperate. No, they didn't believe that He would come back, they despaired. You have a good point though, they SHOULD have believed. As you do apparently haha. Thanks for defending Jesus! God bless you! And I'm still addressing your other comment, stand by.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Yes, but I find the initial skepticism of the 12 as a clear evidence of a fictional work. And a pretty poor one.

Do you have a rational explanation for it? How would you sell it to someone who never heard of Christianity before?

Ciao

- viole

First of all, I want to mention again; your not brining any evidence to support you, only your opinion. Second, I don't think the skepticism of the apostles would disprove any or all historical and practical evidence that I have provided. It merely describes how they felt lost without Christ. How would I 'sell' the Gospel to someone? By first telling them of it, and then presenting evidence, as I have with you.

 

[viole]

Your going there now? Man, your ARE desperate. No, they didn't believe that He would come back, they despaired. You have a good point though, they SHOULD have believed. As you do apparently haha. Thanks for defending Jesus! God bless you! And I'm still addressing your other comment, stand by.

I am not desperate at all. And I am not desperate because you seem unable to provide logical explanation to the claims of your sacred book.

Think about it.

1) jesus performed miracles in front of the 12
2) jesus said what would happen with him. Betrayal, dead and return on the third day. He even anticipated precisely Simon/Petrus reaction to the authorities
3) amazing things happened at his death. Earthquakes, eclipses. A multitude of people leaving their tombs and wandering around town. You name it.

And, suddenly, they got so skeptical after barely three days after witnessing all that? I don't know you, but if I had experienced that, I would have called the BBC (or its Roman Empire equivalent) to catch Jesus resurrection live on video.

But no. They suddenly turned into skeptics.

Do you think it makes sense? Don't you see that this is just poor narrative intended to provide emotional impact, but no rational one?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SoldierofChrist]

I am not desperate at all. And I am not desperate because you seem unable to provide logical explanation to the claims of your sacred book.

Think about it.

1) jesus performed miracles in front of the 12
2) jesus said what would happen with him. Betrayal, dead and return
3) amazing things happened at his death. Earthquakes, eclipses. A multitude of people leaving their tombs and wandering around town. You name it.

And, suddenly, they got so skeptical after barely three days after witnessing all that? I don't know you, but if ai had experienced that, I would have called the BBC (or its Roman Empire equivalent) to catch Jesus resurrection live on video.

But no. They suddenly turned into skeptics.

Do you think it makes sense? Don't you see that this is just poor narrative intended to provide emotional impact, but no rational one?

Ciao

- viole

Take your time lol, you don't have to respond so fast. As I said, I agree with you absolutely, they SHOULD have believed that Jesus would return. But after they literally SAW HIM DIE, it was somewhat traumatising, as you would suspect. It doesn't make for a poor narrative, it shows how our life's are meaningless without Jesus. And as I said over, and over again, I have presented EVIDENCE to support what I said. You have NOT. No matter HOW the Gospel was written, it doesn't somehow automatically disassemble the historicity of Jesus or the Resurrection.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

I'll be back in a few minutes.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Back! And I would like to ask you Viole, and all other non-Christians and or Atheists in this thread; what do you hope to gain in the end by rejecting God? What's your incentive? The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Here's a study on how disbelief can harm or even kill people:

Why Do Atheist Commit Suicide More?

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks....

ForeverCatholic;

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.

OH PLEASE !! THINK about what you are saying !!! Logical..??...I will show you why it is indeed fully logical ina moment..First though -another logical question - lets see -the "messiah" as you call Him - comes to Earth - and the ALREADY established religious regime - MURDERS HIM - even though SUPPOSEDY - they all "play for the same team" lol.....Wanna discuss LOGIC still..??...lol... .WHERE is the logic in that REAL WORLD EVENT ..???... it HAPPENED didnt it..?...The established church - ESTABLISHED PRIESTHOOD - established "god" - DID IN FACT BLATANTLY BETRAY AND MURDER HIM - didnt they..??..

They are ENEMISES right from the start - take the religious blinkers off - quit being so naive And look closely - CHRIST - NEVER established any church at all - MAN DID in HIS NAME !!! Christ ACTUALLY told people to shun and avoid the religion entirely - DAMN those pharisees , you lot MUST come to HATE your parents He said - yes..??

So tell me - logically - if He spent so much time and effort turning people AWAY from the temple - if He told us directly that all those prayers rituals sacrifices, priesthood etc etc etc was NOT NEEDED - then why do you even think He wanted to start a "new religion" at all..??..

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.

And again - PLEASE - LOOK at what you are saying !!! Of course creatures DO have "greater power " than THIS so called creator here - as simply creatures here are DOING AS THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE - and that so called god is powerless to prevent any of it !! This is WHY it kept sending "messengers" and prophets on its behalf - as it is IMPOTENT - powerless - can only INFLUENCE us - COERCE US - trick lie and deceive us until it gets what it wants from us....

And look - this "satan " you fear so - isnt it the absolute MASTER of deception..?? Arent you told DIRECTLY that it can and will even deceive the "elect"..?....

Go read JUDAS - to see the truth of your religion - a PROPHESY that all the disciples share...See clearly - this "satan" you fear ALREADY sits on your popes throne Im afraid