SecularWonder
Member
No problem
Awesome. I just didn't want to start off on a dishonest foot
So... Well the evidence of the Gospels stand up to scrutiny, if they were bogus stories I doubt that the parts of them that show total weakness on the part of their writers would have been written.
So, I take this to mean more or less "They showed weakness (or any negative attribute) about themselves in the text, why would they do that if they made it up? They'd leave the negative stuff about themselves out if they were making it up" (please tell me if I am wrong, English isn't my first language and I want to be sure!)
There is virtually no doubt that the Gospels were written around 100 AD, and it is stated that 500 people saw the resurrected Christ, and many were still alive, now if that wasn't true, a really unbelievable thing, don't you think that some record of someone rebutting the statement would exist? Did a whole group of people lie about this for some unknown nefarious purpose?
But how do you know 500 people saw it? How do you know one person, or two people, or twelve people didn't just "say" that 500 people saw it? Again, I am not mocking, I am genuinely curious about your view on it. Unless there's some kind of evidence suggesting this indeed happened, there's no reason to expect anything rebutting it. You may have studied this more than me, so I am curious.
They make total sense from the standpoint of geography, customs and beliefs of the time, and historical fact, For decades the name of the Roman governor at the time of Christ given in the Bible was doubted, Pilate, because it was not found on any lists of governors in Judea, but finally an engraved marble stele was found near the governors mansion that stated Pilate was governor in the reign of the emperor in power at the time of Christ.
For me, that doesn't demonstrate anything necessarily more than whoever wrote it at the time was aware of a Governor named Pilate, customs of the time and other known events. Again, maybe you have more information so I am curious. If I write a story claiming something extraordinary and include things that were customs today, the name of a US senator or state governor (someone important today that may not be known at all in 1 or 2 thousand years)... However long later it's dug up that would be nothing more towards the veracity of my other claims than some girl named Anneke lived in 2016 and was aware of said governor/official and the customs at the time I lived. It wouldn't necessarily give any credence to an extraordinary claim I made, would it? It would go much further with me personally if there were hard evidence or other sources that cited the dead walking the streets, the darkness, etc.. Especially since this was a time of obsessive record keeping and it would have been well known and widespread without question.
For me the answer to some deep philosophical problems can be found in Christianity. I have read Kierkergard, Pascal and other philosophers on these issues. Why is there anything ? Can nothing produce something ? Why does mankind seem to have an inherent cross cultural sense of right and wrong ? Does evil exist, and if so, why is it evil ? anyway you get the idea.
Difficult area as well. Why wouldn't there be something? As far as we know - something can't come from nothing but that's not what anyone I've heard of in the scientific community claims. In fact creation is more "something coming from nothing" than say, the big bang which speaks more to how the universe may have come to exist in it's current state (not from "nothing"). And if one has a problem with an eternal universe for example, they'd also be required to have a problem with an eternal deity (unless they were being intellectually dishonest). As for a cross culture sense of right and wrong, I wouldn't posit that this is true at all. Some cultures have wildly different concepts of right and wrong than others. I'm positive there are parts of humanity who have wildly different concepts of right and wrong compared to you or I. In fact I know it for certain. Connected cultures seem to have slightly (or sometimes largely) similar concepts of morality, but that could be attributed easily to the simple fact that they are connected and influence each other to varying degrees. As for evil, I think that's another thing that isn't universal. Your idea of evil may be very different form mine, and mine from yours. For example, how would one read the Bible from how we ourselves view morality and come away with God being less evil than Satan? You could make an argument that stands for you as to why he is the good guy, but it could also easily be made the case from the information within the Bible that he's the antagonist.
It's all tricky for sure, and again, just curious for your views! All of the things you mentioned are so very open, and it's why I personally look for more. But I appreciate that it's evidence for you and am curious about your answers if you wish to provide them! Peace