If He came back to the 21st century and did it again. this time He has to be subject to our juiced up 21st century means of high-tech empirical verification that would determine it beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. Extraordinary claims need some seriously EXTRAORDINARY evidence to corroborate them, I take it you do not believe in the 1996 Hindu Milk Miracle?
Luke uses the word "we" in Acts. He witnessed miraculous events during those passages.
John uses the word we and refers to himself as "this is the disciple who wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true" and then refers to himself as "I."
Paul writes in the first person of miracles he witnessed.
You are getting of the subject, which was the resurrection. Of course, there were numerous claims of miraculous events. That's key in all religious claims!
Tell me where it says in the bible, by any author: "I was at the crucifixion, I watched Jesus die, and I saw him resurrected 3 days later".
PS, your censorship needs stretches this conversation to a ridiculous length.
The Gospel of John. John claims to have seen Jesus die, risen from the dead and he calls himself "This is the disciple who wrote these things" at the end of the account.
John never refers to himself as "John" in his Gospel.
Correct.
The author does refer to himself as the one who wrote these things (obviously) and as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This phrase is used five times and by a process of comparison with other passages it is meant to be John.
Can't go through it all in 500 characters.
This is what the author meant -- he claimed to be an eyewitness.
It's up to the reader to accept the claim or reject it.
What i would need to believe that jesus arose from the dead:
1. Evidence of him being alive in the area at the time from a reliable historical source not affiliated with christianity.
2. Evidence he was crusified, confirmed dead, buried, and seen alive after by non-followers.
And you also have to take into account the possibility of a rare medical condition where pulse and blood pressure temporarily drop so low it apears you are dead.
Even if you could provide all this, it does not proove god.
Hmm...I don't know...the fact that dead people don't come back to life. Really it's that simple. I could go a step further and say the lack of evidence of the existance of afterlife and the supernatural beliefs connected to religious practices. Last but not least the lack of evidence pointing to the existance of a "higher" being.
I knew of several people who were miraculously healed of myopia in 1991 at a Christian conference in Moscow.
Search for: "Christian Youth International Conference in Moscow 1991" and you'll see this at about 13:00.
I went to visit one woman in her flat in Kiev about two weeks later and she showed me her glasses and claimed that she no longer needed them. A dozen or more people made the same claim.
Could there be a natural explanation? Probably. But these people had their eyesight restored.
"Could there be a natural explanation? Probably. But these people had their eyesight restored. "
How can it be a miracle if there is a posible natural explanation?
All "miracles" we know about are based on anecdotical reports from witnesses, rather than inequivocal evidence.
Even though a fenomena that we couldnt explain may arise, that doesn't mean that is supernatural; it just means that we have insufficient knowledge on the subject.
Paul's letters are believed to be the earliest. Why did he never mention virgin birth? In fact some of his words point toward the opposite.
Matt & Luke are believed to be largely based off of Mark. Does Mark mention it?
While there is an ancient Jewish tradition with miracle births (Isaac), there is no tradition of virgin birth. Jews then and now hold the idea to be ludicrous.
Not only that, a Talmudic scholar will tell you that Isaiah 7-14 was a prophecy specificly for Ahaz at that time.
Marcan priority was proposed by German higher critics in the 19th century on the idea that the Gospels were written in the 2nd century when there were no longer eyewitnesses to Jesus. The Gospels must have been based on Mark (the shortest one) and the others must have copied from Mark adding embellishments.
... or so they thought.
Then the Rylands fragment was discovered in 1934. Paleographers have settled on a date for this fragment c.115 AD. This blew up 100 years of liberal criticism.
Today liberals place the Gospel of John in the 90s (assuming Rylands is a copy of a copy) and the synoptics in the 70s and 80s.
Conservatives have reason to believe that the three synoptics at least were written prior to 70 AD. And even liberals such as JAT Robinson came to the same conclusion.
With a date from ranging 50 to 80 AD the Gospels could have been written independently by eyewitnesses -- the similarities being due to a common oral tradition that emerged from 30 to 40 AD.
My position on is that Matthew and Mark are independent of each other. Mark actually has the same material as Matthew, but it is often LONGER wording on the common material, while Matthew contains shorter wording and additional information.
Then I think Luke used Matthew and Mark, but he didn't write his Gospel with manuscripts in front of him. He used a memorized version and other oral accounts of eyewitnesses he interviewed.
To say that Paul never mentioned the Virgin birth is an argument from silence. Paul never recorded many of the miracles of Jesus, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Paul often refers to the fact that the Gospel had already been preached to the churches he wrote too. Therefore there was no need to reestablish foundations except those that needed correction.
Paul quotes from a Gospel in 1 Cor. 15 (c. 55 AD).
If you hold that Paul's sermon in Pisidian Antioch is authentic, he quotes the passage about John the Baptist in Acts 13 (c. 48 AD).
These are not simply quotations, which shows that Paul was working from an oral tradition, but they are so similar that it shows a Gospel account had been established for years.
Nothing would preclude a Gospel around 40 AD -- which is the date the church fathers had a Hebrew version of Matthew first written.
The dates of these documents are still debated by people far more knowledgeable than I.
The one thing that is clear is that textual critics have given very strong arguements, some of them undeniable, that passages in the gospels were inserted into the texts at later times.
"Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman for instance seems to me to be quite fair and even handed in its analysis of the New Testament. Maybe you would disagree with his conclusions, but I cannot.
I agree with all of Ehrman's data but not his conclusions.
The NT manuscript corpus has lots of textual variants. The majority are spelling mistakes, grammatical differences and things that are not even translatable into English. The BIGGEST controversies over the text don't change the basic message of any passage.
When you study textual criticism it will either increase your faith or destroy it depending on your presuppositions.
Ehrman's problem is a moral one, not a textual difficulty.
Where does morality enter here? Ehrman learns about the lengthening of the resurection story in Mark. He asks himself. Can I believe the NT as Truth?
The Bible is the guidemap of Christianity. Understand, I am an "apostate". My father was a minister for 20years. I have a theology degree but couldnt enter the ministery.
Why? Because the more I learned & experienced the more I saw it as worthless. It is unnatural, even debilitating; causing huge stress through the internal conflicts it creates.
The resurrection story in Mark is included in ALL modern translations because it was known to at least four second century Church fathers who quote this passage. It wasn't added AFTER the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts without the passage, as is commonly thought, but existed earlier.
Ehrman has made a decision on the basis of limited data that it was added. He simply does not know.
Google my article: "Jay Rogers - Note on the end of Mark 16:9-20" - if you want to see contrary evidence.
He could take a break from sitting at the right hand of god, teleport into the room right now and say, "Hey look at me, I rose from the dead. Here's a bag of gold and eternal life."
I'd say, "Ooohh wow. You know if you'd do this more often you'd save a lot of rational good people from that hell you created."
Or even better, He could be born in a supernatural way as a real Man, perform all kinds of miracles and raise Himself from the dead, leaving behind 27 books explaining it all in a way that even a child could understand, and promising to one day teleport Himself back to earth to punish all who still don't believe.
Born in supernatural way? The idea of the virgin birth is a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. The Greek speaking writer of Matthew used the septuagint which translates the word "almah" (young maiden) into "parthenos" (virgin). It is widely held by scholars that the virgin birth was a later interpolation. Great wide swaths of the NT were made up to fit the texts of Old Testament prophecies.
Leave 27 books? Jesus wrote no books nor did anyone that knew him write any books concerning his actions.
Apparently it wasn't "widely held" in Jesus' day, since both Matthew and Luke (both Hebrew and Greek speakers) understood it to mean a virgin -- as did everyone else at that time. A"mistranslation" was never an objection against the fulfillment of messianic prophecies by Jesus made by the Jews many centuries.
Instead, the Jews wrote in the Talmud that Jesus was illegitimate. This shows they agreed with the interpretation of this prophecy as "virgin."
he will rewrite his responses in debates after the other person has already responded; he will claim to have answered a question or to have addressed an issue when in fact he has not; and so on and so forth.
he will distort and misrepresent the writings of scholars and historians to support his position, he will spew insults to denigrate and minimize those who disagree with him; he will employ insults and bluster to dodge troublesome questions; he will dodge and block questions with his own questions; he will stall by making unreasonable demands in exchange for answering a question or questions that he does not want to answer;
You can't deny that something is tugging at you. Look at yourself!!! You could be anywhere right now, why here???????? What is it about this Jesus guy that keeps you coming back??? Life could have lead you anywhere with all your infinite knowledge right?
no matter how you sell it, you can't deny the fact that something is tugging at you, look at you, what are you doing here? Life could have lead you anywhere, yet here you are discussing Jesus. What gives? Surely you think your time could be spent wiser, what with all your knowledge and all.
I believe the story of 'Jesus' is an allegory. However, Jesus being nailed 'to a tree', more accurately a post and NOT a cross, this very act not being anything particularly out of line with what God Almighty Himself commanded to be done by those who claim His throne for themselves. You have much to learn about the very foundations of Jewish belief, but I know you will not, chiefly because of what you call 'faith', which in truth is no more than an implement of sorcery used to deceive.
Ask a believing orthodox Jew why, if true, he was nailed to a post( it was NOT a 'cross'-another pagan symbol which the Romans mnost certainly and PROVEABLY did NOT use). It was done so(by God's will) because he, a man, claimed God's throne for himself, JUST AS SATAN also did. Watch yourselves ytou Christian fools, you are idol worshippers and you don't even see it.
I was in the church all my life and I'd bet all my earnings for the next year I know scripture as well or better than most, and what I find to be ABSOLUTELY true, is that even within the confines of their own ignorant understanding of these manipualted scriptures(in any language they choose), 9 out 10 Christians jerk them around at will to fit whatever mood it is they are in at any given moment. I don't like these people, and frankly am finally tired of hiding that fact.
you have written that early xtian (500) eye witnesses to the resurrected JC died for their faith ,is there any secular evidence giving details and naming names ?
The problem with FOR BIBLETRUTH'S exegesis on the resurrection is that it is all wishful thinking. He's claiming that the resurrection is not a bodily resurrection, but mystical only.
If this was the plain meaning of the texts, there would be many in the last 2000 years who came to this conclusion.
But there aren't. It's really not worth taking the time to refute an argument no one makes.
He wrote I had to prove first that Jesus existed! Another argument no one makes.
I can believe it but there is a strong theological problem with God being a deceiver. I understand Him sending a strong delusion or deceiving spirit and even handing people over to a depraved mind so that they can believe whatever they want, and killing. But lying? I'm not so sure about that one. I can understand humans but isn't God all-powerful to result to that. Jesus didn't lie when he was being sentenced, and that was a horrible position to be in so I'm not sure.
It depends on how you define lying. The Bible defines it as telling falsehoods against an innocent person in order to do harm against them.
Hebrews 11 recounts how Rahab the prostitute hid the Hebrew spies from their enemies and was justified through her faithful actions she did by the grace of God.
It is similar to the Christians like Corrie Ten Boom who hid the Jews from the Nazis. Weren't they doing the will of God?
Many strong Christians hold the view that God is truth & cannot lie. I was mistaken because I misinterpreted the passage. I still hold the view that He cannot lie. The passage that I described didn't say that He lied. But it seems like He gave them up to a strong delusion or closed their minds
Theres not enough room to write so I'll just close with this, Jesus set the e.g for Xtians by telling the truth even when it produced personal pain/suffering
The new testament relies heavily on the ot, which I do not except for moral reasons. Period. Duet 13:6-11. This is NEVER a good thing, for ANY time. I was shocked when I read it. Absolutly vile.
Read especially verse 10 there. Trying to seduce someone to worship other gods than God who took them out of Egypt, is great ungratefulness and sin against the God and creator who is above all humans and everything. Thus sinning against God is a very bad thing, but trying to get others to sin against God is even worse. Absolutely vile.
Once you are dead, you are dead. If Jesus died on the cross then he was dead which means he could not have risen. If he did rise, then he wasn't dead.
My answer to your question: I'd believe it if I saw a legitimate, controlled experiment today in which someone is risen from the dead. Otherwise, I believe it is impossible (like a person with rational thoughts).
The Apostles said that Jesus rose from the dead and they saw Him alive.
Tell me this: If every time someone asked to see a "legitimate controlled experiment" in which someone was raised from the dead, God would perform a miracle, then what would make this a supernatural occurrence?
No, it would be no more of a miracle than germinating bean seeds.
The wonder of the incarnation and the resurrection is that it was a one time event. We are left with the testimony of witnesses.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled ... that which we have seen and heard we declare to you"
There were at least 18 testimonies written in the first 100 years. Some were eyewitnesses and others who relied on eyewitness testimony told to them.
I've yet to find a Jesus mythist who can give me the name of ONE writer prior to 1800 who claimed Jesus did not exist.
I am going to give you 18 names of people who wrote about Jesus as a real person from the time of His death in 30 A.D. to 130 A.D.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, the writers of the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius.
Now give me the name of ONE person in the first 1800 years after Christ who claimed Jesus was NOT a real person, but a made up legend or a myth.
Acts 2 records that the miracle of Pentecost was witnessed by Jews and God-fearers from "all over the world."
According to Luke, they later went back to their own cities.
Consider that the book of Acts was published to all these cities where churches later existed. If the account was wrong, then it's a very bold claim, because the people in these churches would be able to find NO witnesses in their churches to the event.
Acts WAS accepted as true because its testimony is self-authenticating.
St Nicholas was a real person. He was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Anatolia, now in Turkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor.
"Puff, the Magic Dragon" is a song written by Leonard Lipton and Peter Yarrow and made popular by the group Peter, Paul and Mary in 1963.
Jesus too has a definite literary origin in the New Testament books composed by authors who claimed to be eyewitnesses.
Out of the 500 eyewitnesses, we have the recorded testimonies of the Apostles and several other disciples who were part of the group that was in the upper room at Pentecost.
I have to laugh every time I hear the "missing Roman records" argument.
But I won't write HAHAHAHAHAHA hundreds of times. Although I am tempted to.
I simply point you to a video we made addressing this stupid fallacy.
Search for: "Was Jesus crucified body buried -- or just eaten by dogs?"
If there was an "Independent" -- you mean of course pagan -- testimony that Jesus rose from the dead, it wouldn't be pagan, it would be Christian.
If it were "independent" it would be corroborating, at least according to the definition of independent that is used.
The New Testament contains the corroborating testimony of 500 eyewitnesses. The NT is honest enough to record the testimony of the Jews who claimed that Jesus disciples stole the body.
Spacemonk says "Arguing with 'Holding' is like fighting the tar baby.
He never admits when he's been beaten, he just argues around in a wild goose dance until you can't be bothered anymore, or you get sick of his namby pamby insults.
Then he writes up another 'victory' on his website. 'Atheist humiliated'... blah, blah, blah... "
BigOne -- that's because NO ONE admits they are beaten in a debate unless they change their point of view. Only impartial judges can rule who won a debate.
Why don't you agree to do a written debate with set format (An opening, three counter-responses and a closing argument) with a moderator that would be published on the web, then people can read themselves and see which side they agree with.
The problem with on-line debates is that they go on forever.
I've got a counterquestion: What difference does it make wether Jesus ever existed as a physical being? Whatever happened up to 2000 years ago, today all we have left is a book of stories. If we are to derive morals from them (which I can basically support, though neither using all the stories nor only them nor restriction to single interpretations), what does it matter wether they're accurate reports, inaccurate ones or simply stories?
It makes a whole lot of difference. We are not just talking about moral stories here. We are talking about God the true God and His true Word. If the Bible was inaccurate then that would mean that God was fake. But God is real and that's why it makes all the difference.
whats stands in the way is my own experiences, i have no problem believing my own experiences, your putting more effort into christianity than jesus did , he never walked around and said "hey lets start a religion" if you didnt want to join him he peacefully walked away, i dont know what protestants think their protesting for since good fruit cant come from a bad tree,
Yes, that's true but Jesus can change the tree. You have no problem believing your own experiences because you have seen them. Jesus never said hey let's start a religion because true Christianity is more than a mere religion. It is a way of life. Christianity means a person who is Christ-like. That is Christianity-a way of life. A person who believes in a holy God who can save, a hell to shun, and a Heaven to gain. It is not a belief or a religion but a way of life.
I'll answer. I don't believe in anything supernatural, your litle god myth included. I don't believe in any miracles just because somebody wrote them down hundreds of years after they were supposed to have happened, to do so would defy all logic. Hell, in 2k more years will people be worshipping Harry Potter because of his magical miracles? I sure hope not.
There is nothing about the Bible that one should take it seriously as the word of a god, it is merely ink on paper.If this is the best an all powerful, infinite god can do, then he(it) is not worth worshiping.
I totally agree with JohnLArmstrong. Why should your myth be any more true than the myths of the ancient Greeks, or the Hindus, or any other religion. That's a very silly and arrogant notion of you believers.
Well, I suppose the thing standing in the way of my believing in the resurrection of Christ would be that it is contrary to the natural order that (supposedly) your god created. To believe that a God so sophisticated as to bring us the world and life; yet would be reduced to the ego of a 15 year old boy, countermands the tenants of why he should be worshiped. Does God really need to call it a sacrifice if he can just undo it? Then why show only a few at the time his power?
I have no emotional attachment to it anymore. I committed and recommitted several times but I always tended back to my old ways. There is no logical reason for it.
I don't care anymore. I don't think I ever cared to start with.
All it would take to convince a skeptic of the resurrection is to raise the dead now (Duh)...All it would take to convince an evolutionist of Creationism is for Humans & other MODERN mammals to be found in the same sediments as dinosaurs (Duh) Have the Wizard of Oz (Jesus) do anything good or bad supernaturally and atheism vanishes (Duh)
Perhaps a better question is why should I believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Why is the default to believe a ridiculus story? There is nothing standing in my way. There is absolutely no evidence that you could provide to prove Jesus rose from the dead.
I've never seen any evidence of this story. All I have is one 2,000 year old book and overwrought testimony. If I saw a video of the account or talkd to someone who had witnessed it, I would believe it. Additionally, the story does not make sense. Innocent blood is not required for forgiveness.
Well there were no videos back then. And if I showed you a video you would just say it was faked.
Eyewitness accounts are much more reliable than video even today. That was the argument of the first century evangelists -- the 500 eyewitnesses who were willing to die for their belief in the resurrected Christ, the Son of God.
You are absolutely free to reject this. No one, not even God "forces" people to believe.
Firstly, people even today think they see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich or on wood grains of doors. If people can believe that nonsense TODAY in 2008, how much more could they believe it 2000 years ago, without the technology, literature, and science we have? Cults spring even in today's understanding of the universe, and so, it isn't surprising Christianity got an early start on them.
Firstly, the "willing to die for their belief makes it true" argument fails as soon as you look at September 11th. Secondly, there is only 1 blurb in Corinthians about these "500" people, and it never mentions them "willing to die for their belief". A lot of people die for a lot of silly ideas and outright lies, that doesn't make them true. There is plenty of reason to reject the resurrection story, let alone the veracity of an "historical" Jesus existing.
if you dont think threatening eternal torture as a consequence for not believing is forcing, then we should strike the word from the dictionary. no play on semantics can dictate otherwise. without the promises of consequence, religion would not catch on.
My standards are even higher. How do we know he was dead before burial? How do we test the accuracy and validity of the 500? Why are there other older stories in history of the sacrifice of the savior? Same with virgin birth. Same with world flooding. And so on. And as John video responded, what would it take for you to believe in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc?
Books take a lot less effort to take than a video...
What's standing in my way is that it violates the laws of physics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I haven't seen any. The Bible is not good enough evidence for something this big.
You miss my point. A video of a supernatural event could be fake a lot easier than getting hundreds of people to testify that it really happened -- and then to die as martyrs when their message became a threat to the God-Man Nero Caesar.
If it were all fictional then one of the pagan critics of Christianity or the Roman persecutors trying to stamp out Christianity in the early centuries would have simply pointed out that it was just a fable. However, everyone universally accepted that Jesus and the Apostles were the founders of this "dangerous" sect.
You are missing my point entirely. You claim that there is a message God wants me to hear. Why, then, am I not hearing it from Him instead of from you, whether in print or video, or what have you. Further, you haven't addressed my main point: The story doesn't make sense. A judge would not allow my convicted family member to go free if I offered to serve his sentence. Forgiveness does not require innocent blood to be shed. Forgiveness simply forgives.
Thats rich! Believe in me or I will torture you for eternity. But hey, I'm not forcing you to believe in me. It's your free choice. I think we should give the same option to delusionals. Knock off the nonsense or I put a bullet in your head. No pressure though.
Let's take out the "Jesus"-precondition, it brings a lot of baggage with it that needs to be proven separately. What stops me from believing that a crucified man rose from the dead three days later? Well, assuming that he really was dead and not just very close to it (such cases do happen, after all), I'd say... decomposition.
He broke the Pharisee's faulty interpretation of the Sabbath that let them pull a donkey out of a ditch, but wouldn't let them help people in physical need.
I believe he rose from the dead! I have evidence! I watched this past halloween an all night zombie movie festival! So yes, people can rise from the dead! PROOF. In this case I saw it with my own EYES it's emperical! lol. Was this guys "challenge" a satire? He might as well ask "what is standing in your way of believing that hobgoblins live at the center of the earth?"
Hmm... I guess that the main thing that is standing in my way is that there is no evidnece that people can rise from the dead and that it doesn't happen.
They could. But the question then becomes how do you know it is really logical?
If you are just a meaningless piece of protoplasm wandering aimlessly through the void, then how do you know that the order and complexity you see in your own mind is real?
Believing that it is takes as much or more faith as believing in God.
It's called feedback(using all our senses). How did we create internally consistent mathematical models of the world we live in, which enable us to tweak physical objects to invent manufacture and use cellphones, tvs and the internet? You observe, then try to explain, fail, redo and soon enough you have a model that works.
How about the fact that people, without the use of modern, medical technology, do not rise from the dead. In the first century, the technology did not exist for a person, after (supposedly) being dead for three days to suddenly come alive again. I don't know that that technology exists today to revive a dead body after three days ... this is not mere skepticism, this is methodological naturalism - which is the foundation of modern science.
In other words... second hand miracle account are a dime a million! In fact history's silence - especially considering Matthew's 40 day, walking dead account - tells us that it certainly didn't happen. Basically miracle stories all have one thing in common... They NEVER happened! We can't accept the miracles of Jesus and just arbitrarily throw out the thousands and thousands of miracle accounts from other prophets, seers, sorcerers, demigods and heroes.
jcr4runner whats the point of asking the question if by denying the holy spirit they are damned to hell regardless if they except jesus in their life.
The blasphemy challenge is ironic in that simply what these people, who supposedly don't believe in God, are doing is venting their rage and frustration at God and/or Christians.
They do so with a gross misinterpetation of the Bible. The fact is that blaspheming the Holy Spirit goes no further than simple unbelief in the face of the testimony of the Holy Spirit as to who Jesus is.
Nice loophole you have there, if a person that believed before doesn't anymore and rejects the Holy Spirit, you'll turn around and say he didn't really believe otherwise he won't have turned away, or he didn't really get the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I don't know why I bother...
Simply saying, "I deny the Holy Spirit," isn't grounds for being damned to hell. This saying of Jesus about blaspheming the Holy Spirit wasn't meant to teach that "there's no way out now that you've said it."
Jesus meant to demonstrate that only Holy Spirit produced faith (not merely a mental assent to Jesus) can save us.
An since we are all born as sinners, all we have to do to be damned to hell for eternity is the following:
Aparantly even in the bible, none of Jesus's old freinds recognized him or believed that it was him. There is a theory that it wasn't Jesus at all but it was, in fact, some nut claiming to be Jesus. Like Anesthasia.
As for what would convince me; I dunno, actual proof would be nice, maybe some documentation of this event outside of the Scriptures, something like that.
I understand your reticence to accept the "words" of someone who might be biased or deluded. But on the other hand your request is like asking: "I'd like some proof that the planet Pluto exists without the use of telescopes, mathematics or astronomical calculations -- I'd like to SEE Pluto for myself."
The fact of the matter is that in the ancient world before modern technology, the most reliable way to PROVE something was the testimony of eyewitnesses.
The scriptures are honest in recording that some doubted it could really be Jesus. But it just so happened that not one person who was an eyewitness to the resurrection remained a skeptic.
There is an on-line book by J.P. Holding called: "The Impossible Faith" which records all the ways that Christianity should NOT have survived as a relgious movement if it were not based in fact.
The fact that the Gospels were written over one hundred years after the death of Jesus proves that they were not 'eyewitness' accounts. Also, eyewitness accounts have always been held to be the least reliable form of proof, so even if they were real they would still be suspect.
How is it possible that late first century Church Fathers quoted extensively from the Gospels if they were written in the second century? Your claim is seemingly damaging to the claims of Christianity but unfeasible when you consider the Rylands Fragment, Clement of Rome, The Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp -- all written by late first century authors?
What is it that would convince you that Santa Claus is the one who delivers presents to all the kids of the world every Christmas morning? What is it that is standing in the way of YOUR believing that?
I can't be a Hindu because Hindus are universalists -- every religion is true to a Hindu. But that is an impossibility because Jesus taught, "No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Islam's view on Jesus is too enigmatic. For the Muslim, Jesus Christ is revered as a "great prophet," a good man who nevertheless claimed to be God. According to Islam
what would convince me?
If He came back to the 21st century and did it again. this time He has to be subject to our juiced up 21st century means of high-tech empirical verification that would determine it beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. Extraordinary claims need some seriously EXTRAORDINARY evidence to corroborate them, I take it you do not believe in the 1996 Hindu Milk Miracle?
mojorhythm 1 year ago
Science? Reason? Logic? Is that enough for you?
Mookawonga4kGGakka 2 years ago
All ya gotta do is read the N.T. account of the graves opening and dead people walking around preaching the gospel to realize it's a bag of non sense.
Think about that one! "Graves" opened! "Dead" people (plural) come to life!
That would have to qualify as the greatest miracle of all time. Yet, no Roman record of this!
Ya'd think such an extraordinary event would have caught the attention of the authorities? And then what happens to them????? Nothing mentioned.
Na, no big deal! lol...
HisTruthbeUNKOWN 2 years ago
Every ancient historian has records of supernatural events. All believed in an afterlife of some sort.
There is no Roman historian who wrote ANYTHING about 30 AD Palestine. Period. Why would there be "Roman records" of this particular event?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Ya, dead people coming up out of the graves is no biggie. Not worth writing down. Happens all the time.
The interesting thing is that these are ANCIENT accounts were written at a time when men believed in fairy tales.
Today of course they couldn't get away with it. We know better now.
That biblical account is obviously not true. It's laughable at best, an outright lie at worse.
HisTruthbeUNKOWN 2 years ago
You can answer your own question by asking yourself the following:
What would convince you that "Allah is great, Mohammed is his Prophet, and the Koran the word of God?"
What would convince you that Joseph Smith did truly find the gold plates with the actual history of the resurrected Jesus in North America?
What is stopping you from accepting these beliefs?
4312ton 2 years ago
One word: Witnesses.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
None of the NT authors are eye witnesses! "Somebody else" always saw the miraculous events.
Same as any other religion.
4312ton 2 years ago
Nonsense.
Luke uses the word "we" in Acts. He witnessed miraculous events during those passages.
John uses the word we and refers to himself as "this is the disciple who wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true" and then refers to himself as "I."
Paul writes in the first person of miracles he witnessed.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
You are getting of the subject, which was the resurrection. Of course, there were numerous claims of miraculous events. That's key in all religious claims!
Tell me where it says in the bible, by any author: "I was at the crucifixion, I watched Jesus die, and I saw him resurrected 3 days later".
PS, your censorship needs stretches this conversation to a ridiculous length.
4312ton 2 years ago
The Gospel of John. John claims to have seen Jesus die, risen from the dead and he calls himself "This is the disciple who wrote these things" at the end of the account.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The Gospel of John never mentions John. Perhaps he was the "beloved disciple".
John 21-24 could be a quote from Jesus and not a self referral. The complete sentence:
"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.".
Notice "we" and "his"
I fail to see how this could be interpreted as John personally claiming anything. Besides he was likely dead at the time of writing.
4312ton 2 years ago
John never refers to himself as "John" in his Gospel.
Correct.
The author does refer to himself as the one who wrote these things (obviously) and as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This phrase is used five times and by a process of comparison with other passages it is meant to be John.
Can't go through it all in 500 characters.
This is what the author meant -- he claimed to be an eyewitness.
It's up to the reader to accept the claim or reject it.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I reject it, and have no problem with that.
I reject so much bullshit in my life, and more so if it comes from religious people.
"Witness" of this kind is useless.
I would'nt believe it even if jesus come back and was flying around me, i would think: "Shit what a good trick, where is Mr copperfield.
saintpine 2 years ago
Witnesses!!!, No value at all, you would always find reasons to debunk someone elses witnesses.
Why don't Christians believe in tha miracles of the Catholic Church ?
Witnesses especially gullable ones have absolutly no value to me.
saintpine 2 years ago
What i would need to believe that jesus arose from the dead:
1. Evidence of him being alive in the area at the time from a reliable historical source not affiliated with christianity.
2. Evidence he was crusified, confirmed dead, buried, and seen alive after by non-followers.
And you also have to take into account the possibility of a rare medical condition where pulse and blood pressure temporarily drop so low it apears you are dead.
Even if you could provide all this, it does not proove god.
gulllars 2 years ago
This is an example of "begging the question" or a "Catch-22" in which the proposition to be proved (or here disproved) is assumed in the premises.
1. Are there any accounts of ANYTHING that happened in Palestine around 30 AD written by a witness to the events?
Besides the Apostles of Jesus, the answer is: "No."
2. How could someone who saw Jesus rise from the dead testifying to it be a "non-follower" in believing the resurrection of Jesus?
Answer: You can't be a believing "non-believer."
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Hmm...I don't know...the fact that dead people don't come back to life. Really it's that simple. I could go a step further and say the lack of evidence of the existance of afterlife and the supernatural beliefs connected to religious practices. Last but not least the lack of evidence pointing to the existance of a "higher" being.
beavis1a03 2 years ago
People come back to life all the time -- it's just usually ignored or dismissed as having a natural explanation.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Do you have any documented examples for your assertion?
beavis1a03 2 years ago
Check my vlog in a few days. I'll upload a video called: "Alive Again!"
jcr4runner 2 years ago
That's interesting. Can you refer to some links where I can read about these people who came back?
MisterBoswell 2 years ago
Check my channel.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Right now, you. You and your incredibly arrogant ego are keeping people from believing.
Humility and repentance from you would be a miracle more convincing than any resurrection.
Is that a millstone in your pocket?
JPTill 2 years ago 6
That's your argument against miracles?
"There are no miracles"?
It's a house of cards. A single miracle disproves your premise.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Such as?
CafecitoConLeche 2 years ago
I knew of several people who were miraculously healed of myopia in 1991 at a Christian conference in Moscow.
Search for: "Christian Youth International Conference in Moscow 1991" and you'll see this at about 13:00.
I went to visit one woman in her flat in Kiev about two weeks later and she showed me her glasses and claimed that she no longer needed them. A dozen or more people made the same claim.
Could there be a natural explanation? Probably. But these people had their eyesight restored.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"Could there be a natural explanation? Probably. But these people had their eyesight restored. "
How can it be a miracle if there is a posible natural explanation?
All "miracles" we know about are based on anecdotical reports from witnesses, rather than inequivocal evidence.
Even though a fenomena that we couldnt explain may arise, that doesn't mean that is supernatural; it just means that we have insufficient knowledge on the subject.
CafecitoConLeche 2 years ago 9
Paul's letters are believed to be the earliest. Why did he never mention virgin birth? In fact some of his words point toward the opposite.
Matt & Luke are believed to be largely based off of Mark. Does Mark mention it?
While there is an ancient Jewish tradition with miracle births (Isaac), there is no tradition of virgin birth. Jews then and now hold the idea to be ludicrous.
Not only that, a Talmudic scholar will tell you that Isaiah 7-14 was a prophecy specificly for Ahaz at that time.
TritoneMcgee 3 years ago
Marcan priority was proposed by German higher critics in the 19th century on the idea that the Gospels were written in the 2nd century when there were no longer eyewitnesses to Jesus. The Gospels must have been based on Mark (the shortest one) and the others must have copied from Mark adding embellishments.
... or so they thought.
Then the Rylands fragment was discovered in 1934. Paleographers have settled on a date for this fragment c.115 AD. This blew up 100 years of liberal criticism.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Today liberals place the Gospel of John in the 90s (assuming Rylands is a copy of a copy) and the synoptics in the 70s and 80s.
Conservatives have reason to believe that the three synoptics at least were written prior to 70 AD. And even liberals such as JAT Robinson came to the same conclusion.
With a date from ranging 50 to 80 AD the Gospels could have been written independently by eyewitnesses -- the similarities being due to a common oral tradition that emerged from 30 to 40 AD.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
My position on is that Matthew and Mark are independent of each other. Mark actually has the same material as Matthew, but it is often LONGER wording on the common material, while Matthew contains shorter wording and additional information.
Then I think Luke used Matthew and Mark, but he didn't write his Gospel with manuscripts in front of him. He used a memorized version and other oral accounts of eyewitnesses he interviewed.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
To say that Paul never mentioned the Virgin birth is an argument from silence. Paul never recorded many of the miracles of Jesus, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Paul often refers to the fact that the Gospel had already been preached to the churches he wrote too. Therefore there was no need to reestablish foundations except those that needed correction.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Paul quotes from a Gospel in 1 Cor. 15 (c. 55 AD).
If you hold that Paul's sermon in Pisidian Antioch is authentic, he quotes the passage about John the Baptist in Acts 13 (c. 48 AD).
These are not simply quotations, which shows that Paul was working from an oral tradition, but they are so similar that it shows a Gospel account had been established for years.
Nothing would preclude a Gospel around 40 AD -- which is the date the church fathers had a Hebrew version of Matthew first written.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
The dates of these documents are still debated by people far more knowledgeable than I.
The one thing that is clear is that textual critics have given very strong arguements, some of them undeniable, that passages in the gospels were inserted into the texts at later times.
"Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman for instance seems to me to be quite fair and even handed in its analysis of the New Testament. Maybe you would disagree with his conclusions, but I cannot.
TritoneMcgee 3 years ago
I agree with all of Ehrman's data but not his conclusions.
The NT manuscript corpus has lots of textual variants. The majority are spelling mistakes, grammatical differences and things that are not even translatable into English. The BIGGEST controversies over the text don't change the basic message of any passage.
When you study textual criticism it will either increase your faith or destroy it depending on your presuppositions.
Ehrman's problem is a moral one, not a textual difficulty.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Where does morality enter here? Ehrman learns about the lengthening of the resurection story in Mark. He asks himself. Can I believe the NT as Truth?
The Bible is the guidemap of Christianity. Understand, I am an "apostate". My father was a minister for 20years. I have a theology degree but couldnt enter the ministery.
Why? Because the more I learned & experienced the more I saw it as worthless. It is unnatural, even debilitating; causing huge stress through the internal conflicts it creates.
TritoneMcgee 3 years ago
The resurrection story in Mark is included in ALL modern translations because it was known to at least four second century Church fathers who quote this passage. It wasn't added AFTER the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts without the passage, as is commonly thought, but existed earlier.
Ehrman has made a decision on the basis of limited data that it was added. He simply does not know.
Google my article: "Jay Rogers - Note on the end of Mark 16:9-20" - if you want to see contrary evidence.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
He could take a break from sitting at the right hand of god, teleport into the room right now and say, "Hey look at me, I rose from the dead. Here's a bag of gold and eternal life."
I'd say, "Ooohh wow. You know if you'd do this more often you'd save a lot of rational good people from that hell you created."
TritoneMcgee 3 years ago
Or even better, He could be born in a supernatural way as a real Man, perform all kinds of miracles and raise Himself from the dead, leaving behind 27 books explaining it all in a way that even a child could understand, and promising to one day teleport Himself back to earth to punish all who still don't believe.
Anathema Maranatha.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Born in supernatural way? The idea of the virgin birth is a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. The Greek speaking writer of Matthew used the septuagint which translates the word "almah" (young maiden) into "parthenos" (virgin). It is widely held by scholars that the virgin birth was a later interpolation. Great wide swaths of the NT were made up to fit the texts of Old Testament prophecies.
Leave 27 books? Jesus wrote no books nor did anyone that knew him write any books concerning his actions.
TritoneMcgee 3 years ago
Apparently it wasn't "widely held" in Jesus' day, since both Matthew and Luke (both Hebrew and Greek speakers) understood it to mean a virgin -- as did everyone else at that time. A"mistranslation" was never an objection against the fulfillment of messianic prophecies by Jesus made by the Jews many centuries.
Instead, the Jews wrote in the Talmud that Jesus was illegitimate. This shows they agreed with the interpretation of this prophecy as "virgin."
jcr4runner 3 years ago
(continued)
he will rewrite his responses in debates after the other person has already responded; he will claim to have answered a question or to have addressed an issue when in fact he has not; and so on and so forth.
acidgawd999 3 years ago
Can you prove that he does that? Where's the evidence? Show me, you have time to post a comment him, make time to prove your accusations?
You want proof that God exists with empirical methods, I want proof that JP Holding is full of it.
I'll wait, cause I know you're the one who's full of it. God bless.
cboadicea 3 years ago
(continued)
he will distort and misrepresent the writings of scholars and historians to support his position, he will spew insults to denigrate and minimize those who disagree with him; he will employ insults and bluster to dodge troublesome questions; he will dodge and block questions with his own questions; he will stall by making unreasonable demands in exchange for answering a question or questions that he does not want to answer;
acidgawd999 3 years ago
You can't deny that something is tugging at you. Look at yourself!!! You could be anywhere right now, why here???????? What is it about this Jesus guy that keeps you coming back??? Life could have lead you anywhere with all your infinite knowledge right?
1oquinn 3 years ago
no matter how you sell it, you can't deny the fact that something is tugging at you, look at you, what are you doing here? Life could have lead you anywhere, yet here you are discussing Jesus. What gives? Surely you think your time could be spent wiser, what with all your knowledge and all.
1oquinn 3 years ago
Logic, rationale, and good reasoning are what prevent me.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Otherwise a claim made with no basis can be refuted with no basis while remaining entirely valid.
Alkirin 3 years ago
I believe the story of 'Jesus' is an allegory. However, Jesus being nailed 'to a tree', more accurately a post and NOT a cross, this very act not being anything particularly out of line with what God Almighty Himself commanded to be done by those who claim His throne for themselves. You have much to learn about the very foundations of Jewish belief, but I know you will not, chiefly because of what you call 'faith', which in truth is no more than an implement of sorcery used to deceive.
Cliner97 3 years ago
Ask a believing orthodox Jew why, if true, he was nailed to a post( it was NOT a 'cross'-another pagan symbol which the Romans mnost certainly and PROVEABLY did NOT use). It was done so(by God's will) because he, a man, claimed God's throne for himself, JUST AS SATAN also did. Watch yourselves ytou Christian fools, you are idol worshippers and you don't even see it.
Cliner97 3 years ago
In a strange way I agree with you.
Many skeptics claim Jesus never said He was God, yet you hit the nail on the head.
He was crucified precisely because He did!
jcr4runner 3 years ago
I was in the church all my life and I'd bet all my earnings for the next year I know scripture as well or better than most, and what I find to be ABSOLUTELY true, is that even within the confines of their own ignorant understanding of these manipualted scriptures(in any language they choose), 9 out 10 Christians jerk them around at will to fit whatever mood it is they are in at any given moment. I don't like these people, and frankly am finally tired of hiding that fact.
Cliner97 3 years ago
you have written that early xtian (500) eye witnesses to the resurrected JC died for their faith ,is there any secular evidence giving details and naming names ?
ark1588 3 years ago
Good point ark1588, not to mention the saints that rose along with jesus, and who were seen by "many".
BSintolerant 3 years ago
When will you respond to ForBibletruth lol?
LiStEnIo 3 years ago
The problem with FOR BIBLETRUTH'S exegesis on the resurrection is that it is all wishful thinking. He's claiming that the resurrection is not a bodily resurrection, but mystical only.
If this was the plain meaning of the texts, there would be many in the last 2000 years who came to this conclusion.
But there aren't. It's really not worth taking the time to refute an argument no one makes.
He wrote I had to prove first that Jesus existed! Another argument no one makes.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Titus 1:2 Says God cannot lie.
While Ezk 14:6-9 Says that the LORD deceived a prophet.
Is this a contradiction? Did He lie?
Eriikc 3 years ago
Believe it or not there are situations described by the Bible in which it is right to lie, to kill, etc.
The thing God cannot lie about in Titus 1:1-3 is His promise of salvation to His people.
Other places in scripture, God sends a lying spirit to deceive wicked people who won't hear His Word.
These are two totally different contexts.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
I can believe it but there is a strong theological problem with God being a deceiver. I understand Him sending a strong delusion or deceiving spirit and even handing people over to a depraved mind so that they can believe whatever they want, and killing. But lying? I'm not so sure about that one. I can understand humans but isn't God all-powerful to result to that. Jesus didn't lie when he was being sentenced, and that was a horrible position to be in so I'm not sure.
Eriikc 3 years ago
It depends on how you define lying. The Bible defines it as telling falsehoods against an innocent person in order to do harm against them.
Hebrews 11 recounts how Rahab the prostitute hid the Hebrew spies from their enemies and was justified through her faithful actions she did by the grace of God.
It is similar to the Christians like Corrie Ten Boom who hid the Jews from the Nazis. Weren't they doing the will of God?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Many strong Christians hold the view that God is truth & cannot lie. I was mistaken because I misinterpreted the passage. I still hold the view that He cannot lie. The passage that I described didn't say that He lied. But it seems like He gave them up to a strong delusion or closed their minds
(e.g. 2Th 2:10-12).
Theres not enough room to write so I'll just close with this, Jesus set the e.g for Xtians by telling the truth even when it produced personal pain/suffering
(Mt 26:63-66; Jn 8:40-59).
Eriikc 3 years ago
i still think it a bit odd .
because eve tempted adam ,and he fell for it ,it caused all that fuss .
now come on ,admit it , it's odd .
ark1588 3 years ago
Just a couple of questions.
1. If there were no evil how would you know there was good?
2. Does a human being, who is enabled to struggle against evil and overcome it, receive greater grace than one who never has to struggle?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
1 is yielding to temptation by a woman evil ? don't you think it a bit odd to punish everyone for that mistake ?
2 what is grace ? if one is 'enabled' and another isn't don't you think the result is a fix ?
ark1588 3 years ago
well it all seems a bit odd .
i hope your right .
ark1588 3 years ago
Well you can't have faith without having hope first. So you are on the right track.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
if the god of Jesus is responsible for the many wonders of our universe, do you not think the cr/re antics are peculiar ?
honestly now don't you think so ?
ark1588 3 years ago
The Apostle Paul wrote that the scandal of the cross was foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews.
It seems "peculiar" because of our pride in wanting to be self righteous and self sufficient.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
i try to be self sufficient ,not sure about self-righteous , i am not a greek or a jew .
but i still think it strange, and in some ways cruel .
ark1588 3 years ago
According to Paul, you are a Greek actually.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
If Jesus died for our sins ,then rose again ,and he knew it all along , it seems a bit of a trick .
ark1588 3 years ago
The new testament relies heavily on the ot, which I do not except for moral reasons. Period. Duet 13:6-11. This is NEVER a good thing, for ANY time. I was shocked when I read it. Absolutly vile.
BSintolerant 3 years ago
Read especially verse 10 there. Trying to seduce someone to worship other gods than God who took them out of Egypt, is great ungratefulness and sin against the God and creator who is above all humans and everything. Thus sinning against God is a very bad thing, but trying to get others to sin against God is even worse. Absolutely vile.
nilzor 3 years ago
Once you are dead, you are dead. If Jesus died on the cross then he was dead which means he could not have risen. If he did rise, then he wasn't dead.
Here4Years 3 years ago 2
My answer to your question: I'd believe it if I saw a legitimate, controlled experiment today in which someone is risen from the dead. Otherwise, I believe it is impossible (like a person with rational thoughts).
mdk31 3 years ago
The Apostles said that Jesus rose from the dead and they saw Him alive.
Tell me this: If every time someone asked to see a "legitimate controlled experiment" in which someone was raised from the dead, God would perform a miracle, then what would make this a supernatural occurrence?
No, it would be no more of a miracle than germinating bean seeds.
The wonder of the incarnation and the resurrection is that it was a one time event. We are left with the testimony of witnesses.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
But what, aside from a 2000-year-old book, do we have as evidence that it ever happened?
mdk31 3 years ago
What's holding me back from believing? I don't put my belief into fairy tales.
SunFun4Me 3 years ago
A book can be used to prove itself. It's complete foolishness to say otherwise.
Is Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" not used to prove that Einstein first formulated the theory?
I'll give you 18 writers, Christian, Jewish and pagan, from 30 A.D. to 130 A.D. who recorded that Jesus was real person.
First you have to give me the name of ONE historian from 30 A.D. to 1800 who wrote that HE did NOT exist.
Don't bother me again with this foolishness that Jesus didn't exist until you can do that.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Nay. 500 eyewitnesses? I'd rather say there were 3-4 people who claimed that threre were 500 eyewitnesses and wrote that down.
And yes, if there was no important Jesus around, then of course there would be no historian from 30 Ad to whatsoever to write about him NOT existing.
And your 18 writers are crap, because they witnessed the Jesus-cult, not the actual man.
Johannes9126 3 years ago
1 John 1 --
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled ... that which we have seen and heard we declare to you"
There were at least 18 testimonies written in the first 100 years. Some were eyewitnesses and others who relied on eyewitness testimony told to them.
I've yet to find a Jesus mythist who can give me the name of ONE writer prior to 1800 who claimed Jesus did not exist.
Why?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
18 testimonies??? Can I get that list please?
BSintolerant 3 years ago
I am going to give you 18 names of people who wrote about Jesus as a real person from the time of His death in 30 A.D. to 130 A.D.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, the writers of the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius.
Now give me the name of ONE person in the first 1800 years after Christ who claimed Jesus was NOT a real person, but a made up legend or a myth.
Just give one name.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Does Ben Franklin count? He considered Jesus to be a real man, but not the son of god.
lotronex 3 years ago
No, he doesn't count.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
This silliness of yours now has you posted on Fundies Say the Darndest Things... enjoy.
MagnaBipolar 3 years ago
Yeah I just HATE it when the enemies of the Gospel advertise my websites!
For free no less!
The audacity.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
you could prove by that logic that any religion is true.
the book of mormon contains claims of divine inspiration
the koran contains claims of divine inspiration
numerous hindu texts contain the same claims
are they all true? no. they can't ALL be true because they contain mutually exclusive claims.
GorgonsHead 3 years ago
So, if you print the same incorrect information in different chapters of the same book, or series of books, that proves the information is correct?
Do you see the inherent stupidity of your statement yet?
AnysiaC 3 years ago
Acts 2 records that the miracle of Pentecost was witnessed by Jews and God-fearers from "all over the world."
According to Luke, they later went back to their own cities.
Consider that the book of Acts was published to all these cities where churches later existed. If the account was wrong, then it's a very bold claim, because the people in these churches would be able to find NO witnesses in their churches to the event.
Acts WAS accepted as true because its testimony is self-authenticating.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
"A book can be used to prove itself."
Or not. That's what we in the reality biz call "circular logic". It doesn't work.
FattyArbuckleCola 3 years ago
Fatty,
All logic is circular. Logic relies on unproven premises or "presuppositions."
The Christian presupposition is "In the beginning God ..."
Everything else is argued from that.
Can you think of a presupposition that has a better chance of being non-circular?
If you try to prove the premises, you are engaging in circular logic.
In stating that "a self-contained argument does not prove itself" you too are using a circular argument!
If an argument does not prove itself, then what does?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Evidence. Physical, material evidence. That's why I think the Earth is a sphere, there are pictures of it.
maplezyrup 3 years ago
Actually "In the beginning..." belongs to the jews, which the christians ripped off.
BSintolerant 3 years ago 2
There hasn't been anyone refuting the existing of Santa Claus nor Puff the Magic Dragon prior to 1800 either. Do you feel that both exist now?
dtctx 3 years ago
St Nicholas was a real person. He was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Anatolia, now in Turkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor.
"Puff, the Magic Dragon" is a song written by Leonard Lipton and Peter Yarrow and made popular by the group Peter, Paul and Mary in 1963.
Jesus too has a definite literary origin in the New Testament books composed by authors who claimed to be eyewitnesses.
Any other stupid examples?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Out of the 500 eyewitnesses, we have the recorded testimonies of the Apostles and several other disciples who were part of the group that was in the upper room at Pentecost.
I have to laugh every time I hear the "missing Roman records" argument.
But I won't write HAHAHAHAHAHA hundreds of times. Although I am tempted to.
I simply point you to a video we made addressing this stupid fallacy.
Search for: "Was Jesus crucified body buried -- or just eaten by dogs?"
jcr4runner 3 years ago
If there was an "Independent" -- you mean of course pagan -- testimony that Jesus rose from the dead, it wouldn't be pagan, it would be Christian.
If it were "independent" it would be corroborating, at least according to the definition of independent that is used.
The New Testament contains the corroborating testimony of 500 eyewitnesses. The NT is honest enough to record the testimony of the Jews who claimed that Jesus disciples stole the body.
If that were true, why would they record it?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Spacemonk says "Arguing with 'Holding' is like fighting the tar baby.
He never admits when he's been beaten, he just argues around in a wild goose dance until you can't be bothered anymore, or you get sick of his namby pamby insults.
Then he writes up another 'victory' on his website. 'Atheist humiliated'... blah, blah, blah... "
Bigone5555J 3 years ago
BigOne -- that's because NO ONE admits they are beaten in a debate unless they change their point of view. Only impartial judges can rule who won a debate.
Why don't you agree to do a written debate with set format (An opening, three counter-responses and a closing argument) with a moderator that would be published on the web, then people can read themselves and see which side they agree with.
The problem with on-line debates is that they go on forever.
PM me if you really mean business.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
I've got a counterquestion: What difference does it make wether Jesus ever existed as a physical being? Whatever happened up to 2000 years ago, today all we have left is a book of stories. If we are to derive morals from them (which I can basically support, though neither using all the stories nor only them nor restriction to single interpretations), what does it matter wether they're accurate reports, inaccurate ones or simply stories?
garouHH 4 years ago
It makes a whole lot of difference. We are not just talking about moral stories here. We are talking about God the true God and His true Word. If the Bible was inaccurate then that would mean that God was fake. But God is real and that's why it makes all the difference.
HailCesar06 3 years ago
What would convince me to believe that life was restored to a 3-day old corpse 2,000 years ago? Scientific evidence.
bluespiral58 4 years ago
whats stands in the way is my own experiences, i have no problem believing my own experiences, your putting more effort into christianity than jesus did , he never walked around and said "hey lets start a religion" if you didnt want to join him he peacefully walked away, i dont know what protestants think their protesting for since good fruit cant come from a bad tree,
ThEpErsOnLiGHts 4 years ago
Yes, that's true but Jesus can change the tree. You have no problem believing your own experiences because you have seen them. Jesus never said hey let's start a religion because true Christianity is more than a mere religion. It is a way of life. Christianity means a person who is Christ-like. That is Christianity-a way of life. A person who believes in a holy God who can save, a hell to shun, and a Heaven to gain. It is not a belief or a religion but a way of life.
HailCesar06 3 years ago
I agree with Johnlarmstrong's response.
x00p3 4 years ago
I'll answer. I don't believe in anything supernatural, your litle god myth included. I don't believe in any miracles just because somebody wrote them down hundreds of years after they were supposed to have happened, to do so would defy all logic. Hell, in 2k more years will people be worshipping Harry Potter because of his magical miracles? I sure hope not.
juiceis420 4 years ago 2
There is nothing about the Bible that one should take it seriously as the word of a god, it is merely ink on paper.If this is the best an all powerful, infinite god can do, then he(it) is not worth worshiping.
DukeNukem4 4 years ago 3
What is standing in my way? Simple - I've tried that, believed the promises of the gospels, and they turned out to be false. No results = no belief.
NightmareDeus 4 years ago
I totally agree with JohnLArmstrong. Why should your myth be any more true than the myths of the ancient Greeks, or the Hindus, or any other religion. That's a very silly and arrogant notion of you believers.
AlexGerau 4 years ago 2
Well, I suppose the thing standing in the way of my believing in the resurrection of Christ would be that it is contrary to the natural order that (supposedly) your god created. To believe that a God so sophisticated as to bring us the world and life; yet would be reduced to the ego of a 15 year old boy, countermands the tenants of why he should be worshiped. Does God really need to call it a sacrifice if he can just undo it? Then why show only a few at the time his power?
tireiron 4 years ago
I don't believe in Thor, Odin or any other god and I don't believe in fire breathing dragons, faeries or elves ect because they are myths.
I also do not believe Jesus rose from the dead beause that is also a myth written by superstious bronze age men who believed that the world was flat.
saibod 4 years ago 2
I have no emotional attachment to it anymore. I committed and recommitted several times but I always tended back to my old ways. There is no logical reason for it.
I don't care anymore. I don't think I ever cared to start with.
opinionhead444 4 years ago
All it would take to convince a skeptic of the resurrection is to raise the dead now (Duh)...All it would take to convince an evolutionist of Creationism is for Humans & other MODERN mammals to be found in the same sediments as dinosaurs (Duh) Have the Wizard of Oz (Jesus) do anything good or bad supernaturally and atheism vanishes (Duh)
DukeNukem4 4 years ago
"What is stopping you from believing that Jesus rose from the dead."
I know in my heart that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
HippoP47 4 years ago 3
Perhaps a better question is why should I believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Why is the default to believe a ridiculus story? There is nothing standing in my way. There is absolutely no evidence that you could provide to prove Jesus rose from the dead.
HippoP47 4 years ago
I've never seen any evidence of this story. All I have is one 2,000 year old book and overwrought testimony. If I saw a video of the account or talkd to someone who had witnessed it, I would believe it. Additionally, the story does not make sense. Innocent blood is not required for forgiveness.
mdfilmguy 4 years ago
Well there were no videos back then. And if I showed you a video you would just say it was faked.
Eyewitness accounts are much more reliable than video even today. That was the argument of the first century evangelists -- the 500 eyewitnesses who were willing to die for their belief in the resurrected Christ, the Son of God.
You are absolutely free to reject this. No one, not even God "forces" people to believe.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
A simple modern day miracle would be fine
cjunk351 4 years ago
Firstly, people even today think they see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich or on wood grains of doors. If people can believe that nonsense TODAY in 2008, how much more could they believe it 2000 years ago, without the technology, literature, and science we have? Cults spring even in today's understanding of the universe, and so, it isn't surprising Christianity got an early start on them.
breligion 4 years ago
Firstly, the "willing to die for their belief makes it true" argument fails as soon as you look at September 11th. Secondly, there is only 1 blurb in Corinthians about these "500" people, and it never mentions them "willing to die for their belief". A lot of people die for a lot of silly ideas and outright lies, that doesn't make them true. There is plenty of reason to reject the resurrection story, let alone the veracity of an "historical" Jesus existing.
breligion 4 years ago
if you dont think threatening eternal torture as a consequence for not believing is forcing, then we should strike the word from the dictionary. no play on semantics can dictate otherwise. without the promises of consequence, religion would not catch on.
Pelonetillo 4 years ago 5
My standards are even higher. How do we know he was dead before burial? How do we test the accuracy and validity of the 500? Why are there other older stories in history of the sacrifice of the savior? Same with virgin birth. Same with world flooding. And so on. And as John video responded, what would it take for you to believe in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc?
heroman9900 4 years ago 3
Oh, I see. God couldn't use video to spread his message because man hadn't invented it yet...right.
mdfilmguy 4 years ago 3
The point is that video is eyewitness testimony. But so is testimony in books. Video can be faked. Books are actually a more trustworthy medium.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Books take a lot less effort to take than a video...
What's standing in my way is that it violates the laws of physics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I haven't seen any. The Bible is not good enough evidence for something this big.
lostn65 4 years ago
"Video can be faked. Books are actually a more trustworthy medium..." says the man attempting to make his point...through a video sharing site...
mdfilmguy 4 years ago
You miss my point. A video of a supernatural event could be fake a lot easier than getting hundreds of people to testify that it really happened -- and then to die as martyrs when their message became a threat to the God-Man Nero Caesar.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
What if those eyewitnesses never existed in the first place, and that it is all part of a fictional, badly written, story?
korwinblue 4 years ago
If it were all fictional then one of the pagan critics of Christianity or the Roman persecutors trying to stamp out Christianity in the early centuries would have simply pointed out that it was just a fable. However, everyone universally accepted that Jesus and the Apostles were the founders of this "dangerous" sect.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
You are missing my point entirely. You claim that there is a message God wants me to hear. Why, then, am I not hearing it from Him instead of from you, whether in print or video, or what have you. Further, you haven't addressed my main point: The story doesn't make sense. A judge would not allow my convicted family member to go free if I offered to serve his sentence. Forgiveness does not require innocent blood to be shed. Forgiveness simply forgives.
mdfilmguy 4 years ago
In a sense, God does reveal himself directly to each person to him "who has ears to hear."
He also reveals Himself through natural revelation, changed lives, but mainly through the written Word of God.
Scripture is ordained of God because it remains the same from generation to generation and cannot easily be tampered with by self-seeking people.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Your question about innocent blood is a good one but requires some space. I suggest you Google: "The Cross of Jesus Christ by John Christopher Rogers"
Simply put, the penalty for sin is death. it was part of the covenant God made with man from the beginning.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Your question is essentially, Why in the world did God make it like that? Does it make any sense?
Surely you have things turned around!
Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;
For shall the thing made say of him who made it,
"He did not make me"?
Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it,
"He has no understanding"?
-Isaiah 29:16
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Thats rich! Believe in me or I will torture you for eternity. But hey, I'm not forcing you to believe in me. It's your free choice. I think we should give the same option to delusionals. Knock off the nonsense or I put a bullet in your head. No pressure though.
rockman1969 4 years ago 3
Let's take out the "Jesus"-precondition, it brings a lot of baggage with it that needs to be proven separately. What stops me from believing that a crucified man rose from the dead three days later? Well, assuming that he really was dead and not just very close to it (such cases do happen, after all), I'd say... decomposition.
garouHH 4 years ago
Some evidence would be a good start.
JohnLArmstrong 4 years ago 5
Did Jesus break the Sabbath? This is a reason people don't believe.
Eriikc 4 years ago
Jesus kept the Sabbath.
He broke the Pharisee's faulty interpretation of the Sabbath that let them pull a donkey out of a ditch, but wouldn't let them help people in physical need.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Thanks, its been driving me crazy after hearing it twice. The first time I heard it, it came from The Rational Responders Squad.
Eriikc 4 years ago
I believe he rose from the dead! I have evidence! I watched this past halloween an all night zombie movie festival! So yes, people can rise from the dead! PROOF. In this case I saw it with my own EYES it's emperical! lol. Was this guys "challenge" a satire? He might as well ask "what is standing in your way of believing that hobgoblins live at the center of the earth?"
nontheistdavid 4 years ago
Hmm... I guess that the main thing that is standing in my way is that there is no evidnece that people can rise from the dead and that it doesn't happen.
robtul12 4 years ago
They could. But the question then becomes how do you know it is really logical?
If you are just a meaningless piece of protoplasm wandering aimlessly through the void, then how do you know that the order and complexity you see in your own mind is real?
Believing that it is takes as much or more faith as believing in God.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
It's called feedback(using all our senses). How did we create internally consistent mathematical models of the world we live in, which enable us to tweak physical objects to invent manufacture and use cellphones, tvs and the internet? You observe, then try to explain, fail, redo and soon enough you have a model that works.
onty23 4 years ago
Depends on your definition of god, don't ya think?
BSintolerant 3 years ago 2
Why did the atheist cross the road?
He didn't. Since His worldview fails to ground the Logical Law of Non-contradiction, so for the consistent atheist, the other side doesn't exist.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
Atheists Jack & Jill
Went up the hill
to fetch a pail of logic
Atheism fell down
& once again broke-down
& Lenin, Stalin, Kim & Mao,
Came tumbling down.
The laws of logic can't be scooped up in a pale; they r non-material/fixed; only God provides the pre-necessities 4 the laws of logic.
God lives.
anthonymilessee 4 years ago
How about the fact that people, without the use of modern, medical technology, do not rise from the dead. In the first century, the technology did not exist for a person, after (supposedly) being dead for three days to suddenly come alive again. I don't know that that technology exists today to revive a dead body after three days ... this is not mere skepticism, this is methodological naturalism - which is the foundation of modern science.
GeoffreyDinosaurs 4 years ago
What is standing in my way is that those things to not take place any more than any other mythological happening.
robtul12 4 years ago
In other words... second hand miracle account are a dime a million! In fact history's silence - especially considering Matthew's 40 day, walking dead account - tells us that it certainly didn't happen. Basically miracle stories all have one thing in common... They NEVER happened! We can't accept the miracles of Jesus and just arbitrarily throw out the thousands and thousands of miracle accounts from other prophets, seers, sorcerers, demigods and heroes.
templarart 4 years ago 2
Chesterton already addressed this. No religion discounts the miracles of others - it attributes them to devilry.
NihilNominis 4 years ago
What evidence would you accept for:
Mohammed split the moon witnessed by the people of Mecca.
Buddha performed many miracles in front of disciples.
The Miracle of Fatima where the sun danced in the sky witnessed by thousands.
Miracles performed by Gagangiri Baba witnessed by many followers.
templarart 4 years ago 3
jcr4runner whats the point of asking the question if by denying the holy spirit they are damned to hell regardless if they except jesus in their life.
ZanaOyakata 4 years ago
Because these people don't realize that they haven't blasphemed his Spirit. God Bless
Ajunpryde930 4 years ago
The blasphemy challenge is ironic in that simply what these people, who supposedly don't believe in God, are doing is venting their rage and frustration at God and/or Christians.
They do so with a gross misinterpetation of the Bible. The fact is that blaspheming the Holy Spirit goes no further than simple unbelief in the face of the testimony of the Holy Spirit as to who Jesus is.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Nice loophole you have there, if a person that believed before doesn't anymore and rejects the Holy Spirit, you'll turn around and say he didn't really believe otherwise he won't have turned away, or he didn't really get the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I don't know why I bother...
onty23 4 years ago
"I don't know why I bother..."
Because you obviously care enough about the issue to bother.
And that's the irony of the blasphemy challenge. Thank you.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Simply saying, "I deny the Holy Spirit," isn't grounds for being damned to hell. This saying of Jesus about blaspheming the Holy Spirit wasn't meant to teach that "there's no way out now that you've said it."
Jesus meant to demonstrate that only Holy Spirit produced faith (not merely a mental assent to Jesus) can save us.
An since we are all born as sinners, all we have to do to be damned to hell for eternity is the following:
Nothing.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Denying the Holy Spirit is constant, willful unbelief. God Bless
Ajunpryde930 4 years ago
Right!
jcr4runner 4 years ago
People don't "come back from the dead." If "dead" means what I think it means, that is.
aikido7 4 years ago
People don't come back from the dead unless the supernatural working of God is involved. That's just the point.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
No, people don't come back from the dead. Period.
macman13 4 years ago
Jesus wasn't "people." He was, as far as this debate is concerned, the unique son of God.
regelemihai 1 year ago
Ah good question.
Aparantly even in the bible, none of Jesus's old freinds recognized him or believed that it was him. There is a theory that it wasn't Jesus at all but it was, in fact, some nut claiming to be Jesus. Like Anesthasia.
As for what would convince me; I dunno, actual proof would be nice, maybe some documentation of this event outside of the Scriptures, something like that.
dechha1981 4 years ago
I understand your reticence to accept the "words" of someone who might be biased or deluded. But on the other hand your request is like asking: "I'd like some proof that the planet Pluto exists without the use of telescopes, mathematics or astronomical calculations -- I'd like to SEE Pluto for myself."
The fact of the matter is that in the ancient world before modern technology, the most reliable way to PROVE something was the testimony of eyewitnesses.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
The scriptures are honest in recording that some doubted it could really be Jesus. But it just so happened that not one person who was an eyewitness to the resurrection remained a skeptic.
There is an on-line book by J.P. Holding called: "The Impossible Faith" which records all the ways that Christianity should NOT have survived as a relgious movement if it were not based in fact.
Find the book with a Google search.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Fair enough, such proof, without a time machine, would be dificult to get.
dechha1981 4 years ago
The fact that the Gospels were written over one hundred years after the death of Jesus proves that they were not 'eyewitness' accounts. Also, eyewitness accounts have always been held to be the least reliable form of proof, so even if they were real they would still be suspect.
atheistphilosopher 4 years ago
How is it possible that late first century Church Fathers quoted extensively from the Gospels if they were written in the second century? Your claim is seemingly damaging to the claims of Christianity but unfeasible when you consider the Rylands Fragment, Clement of Rome, The Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp -- all written by late first century authors?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
What is it that would convince you that Santa Claus is the one who delivers presents to all the kids of the world every Christmas morning? What is it that is standing in the way of YOUR believing that?
MntrTodd 4 years ago
I can't be a Hindu because Hindus are universalists -- every religion is true to a Hindu. But that is an impossibility because Jesus taught, "No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Islam's view on Jesus is too enigmatic. For the Muslim, Jesus Christ is revered as a "great prophet," a good man who nevertheless claimed to be God. According to Islam