Your best argument that god exists

[Skwim]

Now that you've established that "God" doesn't allow that, or that there is no "God" to allow that... Who does allow that?

But god does allow things like famine, war, suffering, disease, crime, homelessness, despair etc..

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, I said the rise of the Church was a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.


I never heard Dale Martin say the rise of the Church was an unimportant event. The Church is a living legacy. The Church testifies to the Resurrection, not the other way around. And since when does an event have to be enscripturated by an eye witness in order to be acceptable history? Is that some new criteria that "scholars" pull out of their ear?

"...The heart, as we may call it, of the historical evidence for Christ’s real resurrection is the facts of recorded history. If anyone will not accept the data provided by the Gospels and the first century Church, that person, I can say, has no grounds for accepting any history of equal antiquity..."

"...Part one, remember, was the historical reality of Christ’s bodily rising from the dead. Part two is how the Resurrection is a continuing reality in the Holy Eucharist. And part three is, ‘that Christ’s Resurrection is a promise of our own resurrection from the dead’. Peter’s insistence on Jesus the man being raised back to life by the power of God is the heart of the matter. Later on Peter would tell the Jews, the Father and the Author of Life you have killed, but on Pentecost it was necessary to emphasize that Jesus was a true man, who truly died and by divine power was truly raised from the dead. Christians must be firmly convinced that Jesus, Himself, rose from the dead, otherwise their faith in the final resurrection will lack the grounds for believing that Peter provided the first converts to Christianity on Pentecost Sunday. What Peter wanted to bring out, and Paul will make clearer as we go along, Jesus was the first man raised from the dead. As God He raised Himself, as man, He was the first one to be raised, and we are to follow..."
Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Resurrection of Christ


Please define what you mean by "historical event" because at the rate you're going, there is no history of equal antiquity that ever happened.

Actually no - the bulk of our knowledge of ancient history would be unaffected. Just because we have no evidence of the life or resurrection of Jesus does not somehow magically make all the evidence we have for other things disappear. Why would you think it would?

Sure, there is very little evidence of Jesus - but there is still a mountain of it for other historical figures (Julius Ceasar for example).

 

[Unification]

But god does allow things like famine, war, suffering, disease, crime, homelessness, despair etc..

Life is allowed.

 

[paulhanna120978]

Hi

 

[kepha31]

Actually no - the bulk of our knowledge of ancient history would be unaffected. Just because we have no evidence of the life or resurrection of Jesus does not somehow magically make all the evidence we have for other things disappear. Why would you think it would?

There is truckloads of evidence and by ignoring it, you have no grounds for accepting any history of equal antiquity. And I never said history of equal antiquity would disappear, that's twisting my words.

Sure, there is very little evidence of Jesus - but there is still a mountain of it for other historical figures (Julius Ceasar for example).

There is plenty of evidence and if the same criteria is used on Julius Ceasar as the postmodernist relativists use on the Resurrection, you have no grounds for accepting the history of Julius Ceasar.

A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." Any alternative explanation to the fate of the body of Jesus has not been offered. Critical scholars admit to these 3 truths:

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

The evidence does not end with the Gospels, although the revisionists attempt to discredit them. A number of people will say that the Bible cannot be used because “it says that Jesus is resurrected and that is therefore inadmissible evidence”. This sounds very good on the surface – but it's not. What the person is actually saying is “I won't allow any evidence which says that Jesus was resurrected”. So, that means that the Christian has to prove that Jesus was resurrected without ever being allowed to use a source which says that! This is totally unfair, and simply ridiculous.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm glad we're talking about History, since that's one of my areas of expertise.

There is a factual history to anything and everything that happened before us, and then there is what we choose to believe about that history...
We, as individuals, have to reconcile what we believe about history with what seems most reasonable, likely, possible, and (most importantly) substantiated.

For example, your great great grandfather existed. You know this because you exist, for one, and because there are records of him existing. Much further back in time than the great great grandfather and it becomes less likely that there will exist absolute direct evidence or documentation that he was who you think he was. There are probably stories about his life, or about other family members who knew him. You've heard those stories from your childhood and they have directly shaped and influenced your understanding of your grandfathers and also of your own identity. But there is also a truth about his life that is wholly independent of what you believe about his life, just like there is a truth about your life that is wholly independent of what people believe about your life.

How you differentiate between what the true history of your great great grandfather and what people have come to believe about him?
How to distinguish truth from reality?

Apply this to similar historical figures...

Amelia Earhart existed. There exist plenty of rumors and stories about her disappearance and death. Do you know the truth of Amelia Earhart's final days or have you chosen a version of her story which you like best and then apply it to your knowledge of her existence as if it were truth? Which one of the mythologies surrounding her history do you believe? Did Amelia heroically down her plane near an atoll and then survive for a few weeks on rainwater and coconuts? Was she captured by the Japanese as a spy and later assassinated near the Aslito landing strip? Is she still alive today?

Julius Caesar existed. There are plenty of stories and folk-lore that have been passed down since his reign. Which stories are true? Which are mythological? How many of your beliefs are based on Shakespeare's writings? How many based on actual direct evidence? Did Caesar dramatically speak the words "et tu Brute" while looking into the eyes of his betraying friend? Was he a demi-god? Was there an oracle who warned him of the Ides of March?

While Caesar's story is obviously based on some factual history, there's obviously quite a lot of mythology that has developed around it. You have to constantly ask yourself what seems most likely to be true based on your observance of reality and the observances of others.

Jesus is no different...
Jesus probably existed - there is no direct evidence but there are quite obviously numerous references to what people believed about him, written after the fact, so that's pretty good evidence that his story is at least somewhat based on factual set of events. But how do you differentiate between the truth of the story and the mythologies that surround it? Was this character actually born of a virgin? Did he actually have magic powers? Was he the great protagonist that he is portrayed to be, or something else? Did he actually commune directly with a god? Did he actually heal the blind using spit-mud, scare away demon-filled pigs, rise from the dead, and magically float off into the clouds?

Did those things really happen, or are they part of the mythology that developed around him based on the musings of a few pious people who had heard a story about a story and then orally retold that story to others over and over, until it fell upon your ears?

What's the most likely scenario, given what we know about life?

 

[McBell]

There is truckloads of evidence and by ignoring it, you have no grounds for accepting any history of equal antiquity. And I never said history of equal antiquity would disappear, that's twisting my words.


There is plenty of evidence and if the same criteria is used on Julius Ceasar as the postmodernist relativists use on the Resurrection, you have no grounds for accepting the history of Julius Ceasar.

A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." Any alternative explanation to the fate of the body of Jesus has not been offered. Critical scholars admit to these 3 truths:

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

The evidence does not end with the Gospels, although the revisionists attempt to discredit them. A number of people will say that the Bible cannot be used because “it says that Jesus is resurrected and that is therefore inadmissible evidence”. This sounds very good on the surface – but it's not. What the person is actually saying is “I won't allow any evidence which says that Jesus was resurrected”. So, that means that the Christian has to prove that Jesus was resurrected without ever being allowed to use a source which says that! This is totally unfair, and simply ridiculous.

By your above logic, all one needs to do to "prove" Bigfoot exists is to gather a bunch of stories about Bigfoot and put them into a single book.

Tell me, do you apply your above logic equally to the Disc World Series of books or the Star Wars series?
If you did, then they must also be true, right?

So why should the Bible get the free pass you obviously want it to have?

 

[outhouse]

So many errors, so little time.

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.

That is stated in text, and is not substantiated due to contradicting text of who what when and where, was actually at an empty tomb.

It has no historicity outside apologetics.

Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.

We don't know that.

Not one wrote a word about jesus.

As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew

No we do not.

]Mark mentioned almost nothing about it and is are early source the others copied. The ending was added later probably to match the mythology that evolved after mark was written.

 

[viole]

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

.

Let's analyze this, rationally.

Of course 3) cannot be used as additional independent evidence of anything, since it just relies on 1) and 2). So, it can be eliminated as superfluous.

So, we are left with two pieces of evidence:

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.

Now, 1) seems prima facie superfluous too, for if I am a disciple and I am having coffee with resurrected Jesus, and I am sure it is Him (I am His disciple after all), it would be nonsensical to use the empty tomb to prove that I am really having coffee with Jesus. I would use the empty tomb as additional evidence ONLY if I were not sure I really had coffee with Jesus.

After all, if my husband comes back from work unanticipated and comes into our apartment, I am not calling the office to double-check that he is really not there so that I can be confident that the guys talking to me is really my husband. Only crazy people would do that.

So, 1) makes sense only if 2) is not certain. The disciples were not really sure who they were having coffee with, so they needed 1) to establish that it was Jesus with a higher level of confidence.

Now, translate this into evidence of a homicide case. The putative murder was definitely not at a certain location X, some women said, but it has been seen at Y by other people who are supposed to know him very well. Alas, the witnesses were not really sure it was him, but the fact that he was not present at X reinforced their opinion that it was really him at Y.

Do you think anybody would take this evidence as sufficient to condemn the defendant?

Now, all of this would be ridiculously insufficient evidence even it ever took place as described.

The problem is that we do not even know who the authors of the Gospel are. For what we know all of this could have been entertaining fiction for some bored Romans; a sort of "Adventures from the Colonies", or "Colonies Wars"" with the "Empire strikes back" sort of planned part 2.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

.​

 

[Bunyip]

There is truckloads of evidence and by ignoring it, you have no grounds for accepting any history of equal antiquity. And I never said history of equal antiquity would disappear, that's twisting my words.

I am not ignoring any evidence, there is very little.

There is plenty of evidence and if the same criteria is used on Julius Ceasar as the postmodernist relativists use on the Resurrection, you have no grounds for accepting the history of Julius Ceasar.

LOL No, that is just ridiculous. There is a FAR greater and more consistent body of evidence for the life of Ceasar.

A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." Any alternative explanation to the fate of the body of Jesus has not been offered. Critical scholars admit to these 3 truths:

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

The evidence does not end with the Gospels, although the revisionists attempt to discredit them. A number of people will say that the Bible cannot be used because “it says that Jesus is resurrected and that is therefore inadmissible evidence”. This sounds very good on the surface – but it's not. What the person is actually saying is “I won't allow any evidence which says that Jesus was resurrected”. So, that means that the Christian has to prove that Jesus was resurrected without ever being allowed to use a source which says that! This is totally unfair, and simply ridiculous.

Inferences to the best evidence buddy are just informed guesses, not facts.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

There is truckloads of evidence *snip.

Lets see it.

 

[kepha31]

So many errors, so little time.

That is stated in text, and is not substantiated due to contradicting text of who what when and where, was actually at an empty tomb.

John 20:1]
There were two women who came to the sepulchre

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Matt 28:1]

This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does not report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to mention someone does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. In fact, had the critics read further, they would have seen that Mary was not alone:
"So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2]

If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went with Mary. John just doesn't mention them.

Mark 16:1]

There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre [Luke 24:10]

Again, the same reasoning applies.

Mark 16:2]

It was some time before sunrise when they came
"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb." [John 20:1]

I see no contradiction. Mary could have left a little earlier than the others. Or they could have left while it was still dark and the sun began to rise while they were on their way. I've worked my share of nightshifts to know that one can leave the job while it is still dark, and get home after the sun has risen!

There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down [Matt 28:2,5]

It is quite possible that much of the confusion about these trivial facts stems from the fact that many women went to the tomb that morning (Luke 24:10). It's possible, at the very least, that a group of women came to the tomb, and saw that the stone had been rolled away. Some women went inside, but the more timid remained outside. Those inside saw the vision of the two angels, while those outside saw the angel on the stone.

Also, in response to the manner in which this supposed contradiction is presented, I would point out that
a.) Matthew does not say there was "but one angel," he simply focuses on the angel who moved the stone;
b.) the Greek word in Luke rendered "stood near" also means, "to come near, to appear to." In Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7 it is translated as "came upon." Thus, Luke may simply have said that angels suddenly appeared to them without reference to posture. Strictly speaking, one would be hard pressed to establish a contradiction in terms of numbers or posture even without my possible explanation.

It has no historicity outside apologetics.

Now you are saying there was no empty tomb outside apologetics. That is not historicity, it's a presupposition.

We don't know that.

We don't know that the Christian church grew as a result of the Apostles preaching? Seriously?

Not one wrote a word about jesus.

This is not rational. Jesus did not spring out of text. The authors of the Gospels, whomever you choose, wrote about Jesus. So did Paul. So did the ante-Niacene Fathers.

No we do not.

So the Church rose without the resurrection? That's a stretch.

Mark mentioned almost nothing about it and is are early source the others copied. The ending was added later probably to match the mythology that evolved after mark was written.

The Gospel of Mark does not disprove the resurrection.
Most, if not all, of the modern Myth Theory comes right out of the 'Jesus Seminar'. Although it has scholars for it's members, there is nothing scholarly about it.

 

[kepha31]

Lets see it.

I've given evidence several times. You just don't want to see it.

 

[viole]

John 20:1]
There were two women who came to the sepulchre

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Matt 28:1]

This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does not report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to mention someone does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. In fact, had the critics read further, they would have seen that Mary was not alone:
"So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2]

If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went with Mary. John just doesn't mention them.

Mark 16:1]

There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre [Luke 24:10]

Again, the same reasoning applies.

Mark 16:2]

It was some time before sunrise when they came
"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb." [John 20:1]

I see no contradiction. Mary could have left a little earlier than the others. Or they could have left while it was still dark and the sun began to rise while they were on their way. I've worked my share of nightshifts to know that one can leave the job while it is still dark, and get home after the sun has risen!

There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down [Matt 28:2,5]

It is quite possible that much of the confusion about these trivial facts stems from the fact that many women went to the tomb that morning (Luke 24:10). It's possible, at the very least, that a group of women came to the tomb, and saw that the stone had been rolled away. Some women went inside, but the more timid remained outside. Those inside saw the vision of the two angels, while those outside saw the angel on the stone.

Also, in response to the manner in which this supposed contradiction is presented, I would point out that
a.) Matthew does not say there was "but one angel," he simply focuses on the angel who moved the stone;
b.) the Greek word in Luke rendered "stood near" also means, "to come near, to appear to." In Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7 it is translated as "came upon." Thus, Luke may simply have said that angels suddenly appeared to them without reference to posture. Strictly speaking, one would be hard pressed to establish a contradiction in terms of numbers or posture even without my possible explanation.


Now you are saying there was no empty tomb outside apologetics. That is not historicity, it's a presupposition.

We don't know that the Christian church grew as a result of the Apostles preaching? Seriously?

This is not rational. Jesus did not spring out of text. The authors of the Gospels, whomever you choose, wrote about Jesus. So did Paul. So did the ante-Niacene Fathers.

So the Church rose without the resurrection? That's a stretch.

The Gospel of Mark does not disprove the resurrection.
Most, if not all, of the modern Myth Theory comes right out of the 'Jesus Seminar'. Although it has scholars for it's members, there is nothing scholarly about it.

May I extract a little segment from you evidentiary case of the resurrection?

---> There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down [Matt 28:2,5]

My question is: if this is a reliable account of what happened, why do you need all the rest? If that is evidence, then we have evidence that angels exist and were found near Jesus tomb. That would be a sensational thing that makes all those other things, like how many women saw the empty tomb, superfluous.

If, on the other hand, this is not reliable information, what makes you think that the rest is?

But in my opinion, where the authors of this script really screwed up the plausibility of the story, is when they wrote that the disciples were skeptical, at start, about Jesus resurrection. It is pretty obvious that this not credible at all, if we consider the antecedents found in the same tales.

Ciao

- viole

 

[kepha31]

Unmasking the Jesus Seminar:
A Critique of Its Methods and Conclusions

a sample:

"...Here are two (of twelve) of the “Rules of Written” evidence that helped the Jesus Seminar to judge the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus:

• Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus.

• The evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus.

Both of these “rules” fall in the general category entitle “False attribution” (pp. 22-23). They explain how the gospel writers attribute certain sayings to Jesus that he did not actually say. The ideas embodied in these “rules” are familiar to anyone who has read much of secular New Testament scholarship. They’re not original or, to me, unexpected.

But what astounded me was that these “rules” were established before the examination of the gospels actually took place. These were meant to be rules that guided inquiry. But in fact they look much more like results of inquiry, not the rules of evidence. How, I wonder, did the Fellows know that “the evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus” before they evaluated the evidence of the gospels? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or a New Testament scholar, to realize that this is impossible, unless one completely begs the question and makes unproven assumptions about what Jesus said.

Ask yourself: Is it possible to know that “words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus” before you evaluate the actual evidence of the gospels themselves? Of course not. Can’t be done. It is possible, after evaluating the evidence, to conclude that the gospel writers put sayings on the lips of Jesus. But you simply can’t know this prior to investigating the text, unless you assume your conclusion at the beginning. And that’s exactly what the Jesus Seminar did..."

Apply the same methods to Ceasar's writings. Start with unproven assumptions, and apply the same "Rule of Written evidence" before examining Ceasar's writings, and adjust your conclusions based on unproven assumptions. That is not history or historicity, it's stupidity that passes for "modern scholarship".

The texts written by Caesar, an autobiography of the most important events of his public life, are the most complete primary source for the reconstruction of his biography. However, Caesar wrote those texts with his political career in mind, so historians must struggle to filter the exaggerations and bias contained in it.[142] The Roman emperor Augustus began a cult of personality of Caesar, which described Augustus as Caesar's political heir. The modern historiography is influenced by the Octavian traditions, such as when Caesar's epoch is considered a turning point in the history of the Roman Empire. Still, historians try to filter the Octavian bias.[143]
Julius Caesar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

I would challenge anyone to apply the same criteria on Ceasar's writings as does the Jesus Seminar on the Gospels. Any grounds one may have for accepting Ceasar's writings as historical falls apart. BTW, the Jesus Seminar is the source of the modern myth theory. John Crossman and Dale Martin are members of this seminar and have been quoted several times in this thread.

​

Previously, I said,
"...The heart, as we may call it, of the historical evidence for Christ’s real resurrection is the facts of recorded history. If anyone will not accept the data provided by the Gospels and the first century Church, that person, I can say, has no grounds for accepting any history of equal antiquity..."

My position stands.

 

[McBell]

My position stands.

Making bold empty claims does not help your "position" any.

 

[Shad]

Unmasking the Jesus Seminar:
A Critique of Its Methods and Conclusions

a sample:

"...Here are two (of twelve) of the “Rules of Written” evidence that helped the Jesus Seminar to judge the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus:

• Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus.

• The evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus.

Both of these “rules” fall in the general category entitle “False attribution” (pp. 22-23). They explain how the gospel writers attribute certain sayings to Jesus that he did not actually say. The ideas embodied in these “rules” are familiar to anyone who has read much of secular New Testament scholarship. They’re not original or, to me, unexpected.

But what astounded me was that these “rules” were established before the examination of the gospels actually took place. These were meant to be rules that guided inquiry. But in fact they look much more like results of inquiry, not the rules of evidence. How, I wonder, did the Fellows know that “the evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus” before they evaluated the evidence of the gospels? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or a New Testament scholar, to realize that this is impossible, unless one completely begs the question and makes unproven assumptions about what Jesus said.

Ask yourself: Is it possible to know that “words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus” before you evaluate the actual evidence of the gospels themselves? Of course not. Can’t be done. It is possible, after evaluating the evidence, to conclude that the gospel writers put sayings on the lips of Jesus. But you simply can’t know this prior to investigating the text, unless you assume your conclusion at the beginning. And that’s exactly what the Jesus Seminar did..."

Apply the same methods to Ceasar's writings. Start with unproven assumptions, and apply the same "Rule of Written evidence" before examining Ceasar's writings, and adjust your conclusions based on unproven assumptions. That is not history or historicity, it's stupidity that passes for "modern scholarship".

The texts written by Caesar, an autobiography of the most important events of his public life, are the most complete primary source for the reconstruction of his biography. However, Caesar wrote those texts with his political career in mind, so historians must struggle to filter the exaggerations and bias contained in it.[142] The Roman emperor Augustus began a cult of personality of Caesar, which described Augustus as Caesar's political heir. The modern historiography is influenced by the Octavian traditions, such as when Caesar's epoch is considered a turning point in the history of the Roman Empire. Still, historians try to filter the Octavian bias.[143]
Julius Caesar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

I would challenge anyone to apply the same criteria on Ceasar's writings as does the Jesus Seminar on the Gospels. Any grounds one may have for accepting Ceasar's writings as historical falls apart. BTW, the Jesus Seminar is the source of the modern myth theory. John Crossman and Dale Martin are members of this seminar and have been quoted several times in this thread.

​

Previously, I said,
"...The heart, as we may call it, of the historical evidence for Christ’s real resurrection is the facts of recorded history. If anyone will not accept the data provided by the Gospels and the first century Church, that person, I can say, has no grounds for accepting any history of equal antiquity..."

My position stands.

We do hold the same criteria. For one "Still, historians try to filter the Octavian bias" we know of this bias and attempt to counter it. You fail to counter your own bias since you need to accept the religious views or your religion is undermined rather than history itself. Hence why historians do not take the religious mythos built up around both figures seriously unless confirmed by external evidence. However for Caesars non-religious acts we have evidence of for the invasion of Gaul; destruction of Gallic settlements, construction of Roman settlements, the border fort systems, the Roman civil war, etc. Hence we can separate what we can actually confirm from what we can not. In the case of both figures the religious mythos can not be confirmed thus both produce the same result from the same standards, it is not confirmed by any external evidence. We have source confirm Jesus lived but these sources do not confirm the religious events especially since most are from non-believers.

Keep in mind if there was still a cult of the Caesars they could use the same argument for the religious aspects of Caesar. Do you accept this religious mythos as easily as you accept the one for your religion?

 

[kepha31]

May I extract a little segment from you evidentiary case of the resurrection?

---> There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down [Matt 28:2,5]

My question is: if this is a reliable account of what happened, why do you need all the rest? If that is evidence, then we have evidence that angels exist and were found near Jesus tomb. That would be a sensational thing that makes all those other things, like how many women saw the empty tomb, superfluous.

If, on the other hand, this is not reliable information, what makes you think that the rest is?

But in my opinion, where the authors of this script really screwed up the plausibility of the story, is when they wrote that the disciples were skeptical, at start, about Jesus resurrection. It is pretty obvious that this not credible at all, if we consider the antecedents found in the same tales.

Ciao

- viole

clear your clipboard.

We do hold the same criteria. For one "Still, historians try to filter the Octavian bias" we know of this bias and attempt to counter it. You fail to counter your own bias since you need to accept the religious views or your religion is undermined rather than history itself. Hence why historians do not take the religious mythos built up around both figures seriously unless confirmed by external evidence. However for Caesars non-religious acts we have evidence of for the invasion of Gaul; destruction of Gallic settlements, construction of Roman settlements, the border fort systems, the Roman civil war, etc. Hence we can separate what we can actually confirm from what we can not. In the case of both figures the religious mythos can not be confirmed thus both produce the same result from the same standards, it is not confirmed by any external evidence. We have source confirm Jesus lived but these sources do not confirm the religious events especially since most are from non-believers.

Keep in mind if there was still a cult of the Caesars they could use the same argument for the religious aspects of Caesar. Do you accept this religious mythos as easily as you accept the one for your religion?

Much of these bizarre claims derive from late-nineteenth-century liberal or modernist theology. Both of these schools presumed, indeed, that Scripture, the Church as believing community, and the doctrine derived from the former to give shape to the latter were essentiallymythological. And they accepted that mythos, as the total poem that represents and explains reality, was a work of mythopoeisis, of a myth-maker; the most obvious candidate for a myth maker is the human imagination. This would seem to show that religion is a myth of man’s “invention.”

This liberal or modernist claim is, however, the perverse outworking of an earlier one held by orthodox Christians—one which is held by most orthodox Christians in our own day. The early expression, articulated by S.T. Coleridge, John Keble, and John Henry Newman, held that indeed culture is the poem of a poetic community. The Church is a poetic community, whose practices, prayers, doctrines, and works constitute together a great poem. This poem is a work of human imagination, because the Church is composed of human beings. This says nothing about its truth or falsehood.

The question we must answer is, rather, what is this imagination whose out-working, whose expression, is manifested in the great poem of the Church? The Church answers: it is the active recipient of the absolute and the unconditioned. The Church receives the revelation of God. The human imagination receives this revelation in faith. In response to this reception, it begins its work of discernment, of staring into the hieroglyph of what God has shown, in history and above all in his Son, the Logos, so as to discover what are the expressible truths its contains.

The Logos, the singular eternal Word, finds expression in the many temporally spoken words, the logoi, of the Church and its members. And so, the primary source, or cause, of the activity of the imagination of the Church is inspiration: this revelation in faith to the people of God, from God. But this primary source is not the sole source. Human reason of its own nature and power can rise up to the absolute, unconditioned truth. If it could not, we could not know by reason the truths of mathematics, the definitions of such things as rabbits, frogs, goodness, justice, freedom, and beauty, or of the existence of God. But we in fact do know all these things, and do so by way of reason’s own activity. Philosophy, poetry, and the physical sciences are some of its more prominent expressions. These are not human “inventions,” they are the result of reason’s discernment of realities outside and above itself. To claim otherwise would be to claim that every truth is an invention of the individual’s subjectivity.

The Mythology of an Anti-Christian Bigot - Crisis Magazine

.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

my best arguement that God exists is that if He does not, then man is the greatest living thing in the known universe. and if man is the greatest living thing in the universe then the universe is in serious condition indeed. look at all the problems man has caused. there just has to be something greater than man whether you call it God or some other name