Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree it's a compelling argument - Josephus might have been doctored but no sign of it in Philo, and he should have mentioned Jesus (though he does mention Pilate) and Tacitus (if genuine) is just relating hearsay. It's just odd that that a made -up story should have so many problems that the writers need to cover up or explain away. It's almost like they had a true story they had to to doctor (like Josephus) to make it suitable. So I'm still in 2 minds.
Just some observations:
Seems like both camps are dismissive of any evidence that might prove them wrong.
In our modern times, we already have people disputing things like the holocaust and the moon landing in spite of world-wide attention with all the audio, video, and written evidence one could possibly ask for. They still question these things anyway.
We almost instantly started to dispute what really happened on 9-11.
Also, what the founding fathers really meant in the 2nd amendment just 250 relatively short years ago is called into question quite frequently. Those documents are readily available and easy to read, yet we pour over the U.S. constitution and scratch our heads like it were some Egyptian hieroglyph.
In addition to all that, we have far more historians now with a much higher literacy rate among the general population to fact check and more access to everything imaginable.
Yet people are still skeptical about nearly everything imaginable.
I could go down the rabbit hole of UFO's where you have true believers who know they've seen something and a government that denies it's ever had any encounters or knowledge of those phenomena. You also have the scientific community that theorizes both ways on whether or not such things are even possible. Who's right, who's wrong, who's hiding what if anything?
I don't expect replies to any of these questions on this sub-forum of course, but I'm just pointing out there are a LOT of different things to keep in mind when questioning the truthfulness of an old written document.
Now, 2000 years ago, in a much less connected world especially concerning information, we have the resurrection story.
No cameras. No microphones. No internet. Even the articles used to write information down on wouldn't survive very well.
It also would have been much easier for a hostile government to destroy any written evidence of such an event.
I'm not saying that happened, but it's as plausible as anything we're discussing here.
That's also an awful long time for the waters of history to get muddied.
What if the skeptics win the battle of history concerning the moon landing? Just think of the debates they'll be having 2000 years from now. What information would survive the natural effect of time? What electronic information would even be accessible at that point? What information would survive any possible purge by those skeptics?
Of course you will have Christians who feel marginalized now question everything skeptics throw at them, since they feel that their faith has been such to some extent from time to time.
History isn't always settled.
Well i get what you are saying but relating it all to the resurrection, it comes down to this: either we assess what the gospels say as best we can on the evidence, or we say 'Who knows?' In which case the resurrection is not to be taken as valid anyway. It doesn't mean 'faith is as good as facts'.
But i think the evidence of the resurrection is not in how many people believe in it or what early believers a century later and in a different country wrote about it, but what the text tells us.
What it tells us is, demonstrably - or so I argue - that such contradictory tales not only cannot be trusted, but have to be concocted or they would at least be roughly along the same lines.
Just some observations:
Seems like both camps are dismissive of any evidence that might prove them wrong.
Wait, sub. You say we're dismissive of evidence, then you present NONE. What follows the above is a long diatribe about the moon landing and modern this and that.
Do us (me anyway) a gigantic favor and just present your evidence outside the Bible that Jesus rose. That's all I want for the moment. Can you do just that and then we'll take it point by point?
Quote:
Now, 2000 years ago, in a much less connected world especially concerning information, we have the resurrection story.
No cameras. No microphones. No internet. Even the articles used to write information down on wouldn't survive very well.
It also would have been much easier for a hostile government to destroy any written evidence of such an event.
I'm not saying that happened, but it's as plausible as anything we're discussing here.
Well, that's God's problem, isn't it. He's omnipotent. He could have willed that all the written records of Jesus' resurrection be preserved like the Dead Sea Scrolls but He didn't. Doesn't that tell you something, like maybe He simply didn't want people believing Jesus was divine? Or He didn't care or He simply doesn't interfere in human affairs (deism)?
Just some observations:
Seems like both camps are dismissive of any evidence that might prove them wrong.
Except one side has valid reasons (and a lot of evidence) to be skeptical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub
Now, 2000 years ago, in a much less connected world especially concerning information, we have the resurrection story.
No cameras. No microphones. No internet. Even the articles used to write information down on wouldn't survive very well. It also would have been much easier for a hostile government to destroy any written evidence of such an event.
You can not argue from evidence you do not have. You can argue from what evidence you would expect to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub
History isn't always settled.
History does not usually accept miraculous resurrections.
Wait, sub. You say we're dismissive of evidence, then you present NONE. What follows the above is a long diatribe about the moon landing and modern this and that.
Do us (me anyway) a gigantic favor and just present your evidence outside the Bible that Jesus rose. That's all I want for the moment. Can you do just that and then we'll take it point by point?
Well, that's God's problem, isn't it. He's omnipotent. He could have willed that all the written records of Jesus' resurrection be preserved like the Dead Sea Scrolls but He didn't. Doesn't that tell you something, like maybe He simply didn't want people believing Jesus was divine? Or He didn't care or He simply doesn't interfere in human affairs (deism)?
I like straight forward responses like this.
The original question was simple and fair: "Remove the bible and what evidence is left for Jesus' resurrection".
The best answer was actually jimmy's, although even that was so devoid of evidence that it was insufficient to answer the question that had been asked (his answer was, basically, if that many believe it, how could it not be true).
But really that goes right back to I believe it because I want to believe it.
That's faith. And it's okay to have faith. But it's not fact. And that many of the christians here can't differentiate between faith and fact is pathetic, and it's why they spend much of their time here -- trying to prove the un-provable. They would be so much better off discussing the wisdom of various teachings. That they almost never do here.
When I developed a bit of a love of history, I stopped believing all the silly stories about George Washington which had been a part of my upbringing -- the cherry tree, throwing the dollar across the Rhappahannock, etc., all because there was no evidence behind the stories that were partly responsible for his virtual beatification. Instead I began focusing on the actual history for which there was evidence. That was plenty. When I became a Buddhist, it didn't mean that I swallowed all the silly stories about Buddha. I focused on the wisdom of the teachings, whoever wrote them, whenever they were written.
Sometimes threads go off the track simply because conversation wander. In this thread, the christians have taken the conversation off the tracks because they haven't got the goods, and they don't like being almost under oath, so they try to make the discussion wander.
The OP question was quite clear. And frankly, so is the answer. But the accurate answer does not mean that christianity has no value.
What if the skeptics win the battle of history concerning the moon landing?
These are not skeptics - these are conspiracy theorists. Where one takes proof of a vacuum then claim it was proof of a breeze (the flag planting). We can test this on in our own backyards. Or spherical earth skeptics. They are not skeptics - more like lunatic fringe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub
Just some observations:
Seems like both camps are dismissive of any evidence that might prove them wrong.
One could say that but in truth, we are just not accepting unacceptable claims as evidence and what apparent evidence there seems to be, we scrutinize and find wanting.
The original question was simple and fair: "Remove the bible and what evidence is left for Jesus' resurrection".
The best answer was actually jimmy's, although even that was so devoid of evidence that it was insufficient to answer the question that had been asked (his answer was, basically, if that many believe it, how could it not be true).
But really that goes right back to I believe it because I want to believe it.
That's faith. And it's okay to have faith. But it's not fact. And that many of the christians here can't differentiate between faith and fact is pathetic, and it's why they spend much of their time here -- trying to prove the un-provable. They would be so much better off discussing the wisdom of various teachings. That they almost never do here.
When I developed a bit of a love of history, I stopped believing all the silly stories about George Washington which had been a part of my upbringing -- the cherry tree, throwing the dollar across the Rhappahannock, etc., all because there was no evidence behind the stories that were partly responsible for his virtual beatification. Instead I began focusing on the actual history for which there was evidence. That was plenty. When I became a Buddhist, it didn't mean that I swallowed all the silly stories about Buddha. I focused on the wisdom of the teachings, whoever wrote them, whenever they were written.
Sometimes threads go off the track simply because conversation wander. In this thread, the christians have taken the conversation off the tracks because they haven't got the goods, and they don't like being almost under oath, so they try to make the discussion wander.
The OP question was quite clear. And frankly, so is the answer. But the accurate answer does not mean that christianity has no value.
I agree with everything you say. I presented a simple straightforward question. Almost immediately Mr 5150 tries to derail it with,
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
Oh gosh, not another one of these threads. Only skeptics want us to believe that the disciple John, Matthew and Mark didn’t write or dictate said books. That Dr Luke did not actually compile eyewitness accounts. So I guess skeptics also want us to believe that James (half brother of Jesus) didn’t exist, and the disciple Peter didn’t write or dictate those Peter books. These speculations have been put forth by skeptics since the 1700s to no avail. And over a 100 times here. I have one word: yawn.
The actual evidence has supported the validity of the Bible, new and Old Testament.
Then proceeds to give abysmal evidence which is no evidence at all, like "Matthew Mark Luke and John write the gospels" when we demonstrated dozens of times that it has been proven by scholars that the gospels were NOT written by Matthew, et al. They were written by anonymous Greek highly educated scholars living up to a century after Jesus. Here it is again for Mr. 5150:
But this is not going to stop 5150 from continuing to lie about the authors being the apostles. I mean Christians like Mr 5150 have no dignity and no veracity. They simply tell lies when it suits their purpose. That's shameful.
I commented earlier that jimmie was the only one who even attempted an answer and his answer had nothing to do with written evidence. It was just, "How do you explain Christianity spreading?" To which a few of us responded, "The same way Islam and Mormonism spread--by stories being passed from generation to generation." And with Mormonism at least we have 11 authenticated affidavits from members testifying they saw and handled the Golden Plates. We have nothing like that for Christianity.
It all comes down to the individual's personality. God doesn't enter the picture at all. Jimmie believes without evidence because he CHOOSES to believe without evidence. It's just his character flaw. Believing in Jesus makes him feel good and that's a good enough reason for him and others to keep in believing in Jesus without evidence. I've said before I'm all for believing in Jesus if it helps a person out mentally, spirituality and psychologically. That's the worth of faith when you believe in something without any evidence it actually exists. It's a valuable crutch to get us through a miserable life on a miserable planet full of nothing but pain and misery.
Others of us, however who need evidence in order to believe simply cannot accept Jesus, simply because there's no foundation for the belief no matter how much conmen like Lane Craig and Mike Licona try to get us to believe there IS evidence. There isn't any. What they offer is all based on the Bible with a few twists and turns to make it seem like it's extra-Biblical and of secular sources. Things like "multiple attestations" when there's not a nickel's worth of evidence anyone even saw Jesus. And the "empty tomb" when we don't have a tomb and no record of a tomb or Joseph of Arimathea or anything connected to a tomb. They there's the "criteria of embarrassment" offering, "Why would the gospel writers say it was women who first saw Jesus when women's testimony was not acceptable?"
Well duh! Who do they think was assigned the task of caring for a body after it had been crucified? Who else weree the Greek writers going to fit into this part of the story? If the writers had said the apostles were the first to see Jesus their story would have been immediately discredited and dismissed.
It's people like Lane Craig and Licona with their blatant deceptions that gives Christianity a bad name. Anyone with half a brain can discern all this. The ones who accept their propaganda without question are either too busy to investigate for themselves or they're just too low on the intelligence quotient to figure it out for themselves.
That's basically why I started this thread. It was a kind of response I'd like to give to Lane Craig if I had the chance to debate him. I could dismantle everything he says in 20 minutes if given the chance, and it irks me that the atheists he debates have never once raise a single issue that could neutralize Craig's and Licona's presentation right on the spot, but that's life.
The original question was simple and fair: "Remove the bible and what evidence is left for Jesus' resurrection".
The best answer was actually jimmy's, although even that was so devoid of evidence that it was insufficient to answer the question that had been asked (his answer was, basically, if that many believe it, how could it not be true).
But really that goes right back to I believe it because I want to believe it.
Yes, that's really all it boils down to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
That's faith. And it's okay to have faith. But it's not fact. And that many of the christians here can't differentiate between faith and fact is pathetic, and it's why they spend much of their time here -- trying to prove the un-provable. They would be so much better off discussing the wisdom of various teachings. That they almost never do here.
When I developed a bit of a love of history, I stopped believing all the silly stories about George Washington which had been a part of my upbringing -- the cherry tree, throwing the dollar across the Rhappahannock, etc., all because there was no evidence behind the stories that were partly responsible for his virtual beatification. Instead I began focusing on the actual history for which there was evidence. That was plenty. When I became a Buddhist, it didn't mean that I swallowed all the silly stories about Buddha. I focused on the wisdom of the teachings, whoever wrote them, whenever they were written.
I wish we could focus on the wisdom of the teachings as well, although I have no problem believing the stories.
A lot of posters get duped by click-bait threads like this one. I'm guilty as charged.
With all due respect to those so inclined, I do blame the Protestant reformation for turning the Bible into something it simply cannot be, making it an easy target for non-believers and their "without the Bible you got nothing" arguments.
Remove the Bible and what evidence is left? Now, I've questioned a lot of things about my faith. I've questioned the Bible. Where it came from, how things got to where they are now. Probably the biggest thing to come of all that questioning was that my faith wasn't based on the Bible. The scriptures only enhance it, not necessarily define it. What defines it is the collective memory of the Christian community throughout the centuries, which happens to be where the Bible comes from. I know that will never be enough for people who need several books from several sources to verify facts so they can know it's true.
The OP will never get the answer he seeks, or perhaps he's doing exactly what he intends to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Sometimes threads go off the track simply because conversation wander. In this thread, the christians have taken the conversation off the tracks because they haven't got the goods, and they don't like being almost under oath, so they try to make the discussion wander.
The OP question was quite clear. And frankly, so is the answer. But the accurate answer does not mean that christianity has no value.
The question is clear, the answer is... complicated.
I wish we could focus on the wisdom of the teachings as well, although I have no problem believing the stories.
A lot of posters get duped by click-bait threads like this one. I'm guilty as charged.
With all due respect to those so inclined, I do blame the Protestant reformation for turning the Bible into something it simply cannot be, making it an easy target for non-believers and their "without the Bible you got nothing" arguments.
Remove the Bible and what evidence is left? Now, I've questioned a lot of things about my faith. I've questioned the Bible. Where it came from, how things got to where they are now. Probably the biggest thing to come of all that questioning was that my faith wasn't based on the Bible. The scriptures only enhance it, not necessarily define it. What defines it is the collective memory of the Christian community throughout the centuries, which happens to be where the Bible comes from. I know that will never be enough for people who need several books from several sources to verify facts so they can know it's true.
The OP will never get the answer he seeks, or perhaps he's doing exactly what he intends to do.
The question is clear, the answer is... complicated.
The answer is complicated to you only because it benefits your argument to MAKE it complicated. The answer is crystal-clear for those who demand something to hang faith on in a risen man claiming to be the son of God who died for my sins and not believing in him will send me straight to hell. That's not complicated, that clear as purified water.
I am the son of God
I died for your sins
You MUST believe in me in order to not burn in hell for eternity
What's more simple than that?
But to get back to your point: you say you can believe in Jesus because millions of people for the last 2000 years believed in him. Well, millions of Muslims believed in Mohamed over the last 1500 years yet somehow you don't believe in Allah. Why is that? Same evidence: a holy book called the Koran, just like the Bible. A very fast--fast than Christianity, actually--spread of the faith. Disciples of Mohamed who carried the message after Mohamed ascended to paradise on a flaming horse. I'd say that's pretty good evidece, at least as good as Christianity's evidence. So why aren't you a Muslim? Could it be because you were raised in the Christian faith and believing in anything else seems as foreign to you as living on Mars--that the thought actually makes your skin crawl and that's why you cannot believe in Mohamed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
