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.
It struck me that the evidence does rely on one book; one claim.
This is logical fallacy.
Evidence does not rely on Bible.
Bible relied on verbal testimonies of certain people that witnessed a Master, a Guru, A Teacher.
Just like some witnessed Mahavir, or Buddha, or Muhammad. Or, Quetzalcoatl. Does not matter.
All those were real life people, real life teachers, real life gurus.
What their teachings were turned into later, by followers of profiteers from religion (after all, religion is VERY lucrative business) is a different story.
But evidence was not in the bible, as there was no bible. Bible was without any doubt - any believer will have to absolutely twist their mind and logic, to prove otherwise - created as an aftereffect to already existing bunch of followers that, was gaining popularity and had an idea, that was useful both for politicians and for the money oriented folk. Afterall, religion is one of the best crowd controls.
But the only evidence for those witnesses is the Book - one claim, one book. The same - as you say - as the other teachings. I have no real way of knowing that Buddha ever existed. The story exists only in one Book. It's the same with Muhammad, though there, those who fought his armies may confirm his real existence. but then, the claims about him rest just on the one book. I could be wrong but believe - or not, or try to assess whether what the book says stacks up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
That many people, for that long?
Yep. That many, that long. Or how do you account for Other religions? Unless you say they are all true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
What supernatural event caused Islam?
And angel being sent to dictate the word of God to Muhammad. Surely you'd heard that much, at least.
I find Christianity was practiced since the day of Pentecost ( Acts chapters 1 and 2)
The Bible was completed by the year 100.
Before the end of the first century already the apostasy was setting in as per Acts 20:29-30.
Jesus and his first-century followers used "Bible only" .
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning already written down in the OT.
Jesus expounded and explained the old Hebrew Scriptures for us.
This is also why we find throughout the Bible corresponding cross-reference verses and passages.
All those claims (but the date) exist - only in the Bible. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. The Bible as such didn't exist until the 3rd century. Various gospels seem to have been around by the middle of the 2nd century. That some kind of story was around bt 100 AD seems probable, but all we know about what it was is in the Book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub
True.
Christianity existed before the all the books Bible were even completed, much less canonized into the compilation we have today. Something happened couple thousand years ago that didn't require a book to be known.
But the event is only known through the book. Though I'm willing to see the claim pre -existing the book. But then it's the same with Muhammad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
The resurrection of Jesus caused Christianity.
The Claim of the resurrection caused Christianity. I'll go that far. The details of that claim exist only in the book. Sure in two forms - Paul's letters and the gospels. But Paul and the gospels don't match. The gospels themselves don't match. The claim in the book doesn't in fact look very convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub
Christianity was being practiced before the Bible was completed and canonized.
Not that that's proof enough for you, but it does suggest that the Bible isn't necessarily needed for Christian dogma. Having to prove everything via the "Bible only" is an invention of the Protestant reformation, some 1500 years into the whole thing.
But the thread title is the evidence for the resurrection, not Christianity. What's really being asked in the topic is that the resurrection claim seems to have pre - existed the Bible, but all that we know about it is in the book. Take that away we have the churches that Paul founded and it seems, a church in Rome, Antioch, supposedly Damascus. But what we know about them comes from the book. Paul is writing to Rome to convince them of his beliefs. What did the Church in Rome believe that Paul had to convince them of the resurrection?
It's been said that the claim (the basis of Christianity) was codified later on into the one book. But the claims all differ. Let's face it - the resurrection -claim existed before Christianity, in Pharisee Judaism. The belief that the dead would rise when the messiah came. Isn't it arguable that the Christian claim was that the messiah Had come and so the dead had risen? But the hadn't. Instead the 'Messiah' had been killed. So have him resurrect by himself as proof that the resurrection of everyone else would happen.
So what's the evidence that this claim was invented? We get the resurrection claim in the Gospels, but they disagree with both Paul and each other. That's the reason to disbelieve the claim, because they can't agree what actually happened. It won't do to say that they agree on the basic thing; they would if they were inventing a story to prove it. But if it was true the stories ought to agree. They don't.
Anticipating the 'witness discrepancy' argument, it isn't minor details that you can put down to bad memory, but total contradiction that can only be put down to contradictory stories that only notice when you bring them together in One book.
Or they should have been noticed, but blowed if nobody seems to have noticed all this time...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-01-2019 at 03:13 AM..
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.
So John added chapter 21 over 100 years after he had died?
And you have it wrong. Only some Christians want us to believe that the disciple John, Matthew and Mark DID write or dictate said books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
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.
Yawn. The usual ignoring of evidence you do not like.
It’s unlikely that a religion would have developed in the first place if that was true. Too many people would have had to perpetuate the lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
I second that. And it's even more notable in that it grew to something huge, all while in a vacuum of "no information age". Information now is accepted simply by exposure, and passed remotely. But the Gospel, in contrast, was with personal eyewitness, by thousands of people over several years. There's no way to bury or hide that. With with no Bible, it still would have continued on.
Very refreshing to hear you two guys finally admitting that Hinduism is true. After all, It has endured longer than Christianity and it has millions of followers. That wouldn't have happened if it wasn't true...right?
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.
...but they didn't and your Bible tells you that.
Matthew makes no direct claim in his gospel to being an eyewitness and heavily plagiarised Mark... …which an "eye-witness" wouldn't need to do.
Luke was not a follower of Jesus, he was a follower of Paul. Because some spurious stories about your man-god were circulating, Luke interviewed people who claimed to have known your man-god. So the Gospel of Luke is nothing more than second hand stories from people who claimed to have known this Jesus
Mark wrote down what Peter had told him about who Jesus was, what he did, where he went and what happened. Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, written down by Mark.
The Gospel of John was written far too long after the events to have been written by an eye-witness.
Surely you understand that an 'eye-witness' has to be there to see it for themselves and none of those you mentioned were.. You are not an eye-witness if you are dictating the claims of someone else. How would you know that the claims you are dictating are true? The person you are quoting might be spinning you a load of tosh!
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.