How do we know?

[ScreamingEagle]

*sigh* ummmmmmmm...... you do know you're arguing stuff that really isn't up for argument, right? People either believe stuff or don't believe stuff when it comes to religion. That's why they call it "faith".

just checking....

:scratch:

Using that sort of reasoning most history is just a "leap of faith" isn't it?

 

[MissileMan]

Using that sort of reasoning most history is just a "leap of faith" isn't it?

Only if you treat mythology and history as equal.

 

[Joz]

How do we know that Jesus was actually dead when he was removed from the cross and put in the tomb?.....People have recovered from stab wounds before.

I'm still searching for the test but as soon as I find it I'll give it to you. (I don't know why I can't see it today)

 

[Joz]

.....Being as I doubt you actually want to test your theory, what does it matter?.....

Unless Christ was dead, he didn't rise "from the dead" therefore He would NOT have power over death. It matters greatly.

 

[Joz]

How do we know that Jesus was actually dead when he was removed from the cross and put in the tomb?

Its much more logical of an explanation to say that the people who buried him mistakenly assumed he was dead, when he wasn't really. He was only on the cross for a few hours, then he was stabbed, and taken down. People have recovered from stab wounds before.

Christ didn't just die from his wounds. That was just the finality that needed to be carried out.
If you read about the agony Christ experienced it the Garden of Gesthemane He would have died then from bearing the sins of the world, but "an angel appeared to Him and gave Him strength to go on & experience the full impact of the seperation of God". Death does not sepreate us from God, only sin.

"In agony He swayed and again fell to HIs knees. He clutched the ground as He prayed earnestly and His perspiration was discolored by blood as it dripped to the ground".
Luke 22:43-44

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Only if you treat mythology and history as equal.

You're bringing up the old "Jesus Myth" argument. Sorry, but it doesn't fly.

A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth by Christopher Price

Elsewhere, I have pointed out that the Jesus Myth is effectively dead as a theory in critical historical studies. Contemporary historians and New Testament scholars generally find recent advocates of these theories so bizarre and uninformed that they are not worth the time to rebut. But as long as there has been a Jesus Myth there have been genuine scholars willing and able to respond to it. This article looks at their work.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price8.htm

A contemporary book on the subject found at Amazon.com

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus) (Paperback) by Robert E. Van Voorst,

Exerpt from one reader's review:

"But what you may not realize you are getting with this book, based on its cover, is an effective one-chapter discussion of the Jesus Myth and a very informative discussion of the Gospel sources.

Indeed, Van Voorst is one of the few contemporary New Testament scholars to devote much time to the Jesus Myth. He devotes most of Chapter 1 to discussing the Jesus Myth, including a helpful overview of its historical development. At the end of the chapter, Van Voorst helpfully summarizes seven grounds upon which New Testament scholars and historians have continuously rejected the Jesus Myth:

1. Jesus Mythologists routinely misinterpret Paul's relative silence about some biographical details of the life of Jesus.

2. Jesus Mythologists are forced to offer radically late and unsupported datings of the Canonical Gospels.

3. Jesus Mythologists often claim that evidence of literary development and errors in the Gospels support the idea that Jesus did not exist. But as Van Voorst points out, "development does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove non-existence."

4. Jesus Mythologists have failed to "explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it."

5. Jesus Mythologists rely partially on "well-known text-critical and source-critical problems" in ancient Non-Christian references to Jesus, but go beyond the evidence and difficulties by claiming that these sources have no value. They also ignore "the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy."

6. Jesus Mythologists are not doing history, but polemics. "Wells and others seem to have advanced the non-historicity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Free thought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair."

7. Jesus Mythologists have consistently failed to offer a better explanation for the origins of Christianity than the existence of Jesus as its founding figure. Though various mythical origins have been attempted, they are even more deficient in corroborative evidence than the existence of Jesus.

Mocking these points hardly advances the Jesus Myth's agenda. Nor does raising red herrings like evolutionary theory and supposed double standards (not evidenced in the book by any means). Van Voorst is summarizing a war already won, not refighting all of the battles. The Jesus Myth has been leveled again and again by scholars--particularly earlier in the previous century (by scholars like Maurice Gougel and Shirely Case). Subsequent scholarly trends have been even less kind. Van Voorst helpfully distills down the reasons that "iblical scholars and classical historians now regard [the Jesus Myth] as effectively refuted." "

 

[MissileMan]

You're bringing up the old "Jesus Myth" argument. Sorry, but it doesn't fly.

I'm not saying that Jesus was a myth...I believe there was a person named Jesus Christ. I am saying that the super-natural events associated with him, including the resurrection are myth.

I'll wager that there have been more post-death sightings of Elvis than there were of Jesus. Does that mean that Elvis was God incarnate?

 

[jillian]

Using that sort of reasoning most history is just a "leap of faith" isn't it?

How do you figure? History is history. Religion is religion. Religion is not history or science. Religion takes a leap of faith. History does not. Science does not. :scratch:

 

[Joz]

..... I am saying that the super-natural events associated with him, including the resurrection are myth.

I did not know this.
I am so very sorry.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm not saying that Jesus was a myth...I believe there was a person named Jesus Christ. I am saying that the super-natural events associated with him, including the resurrection are myth.

I'll wager that there have been more post-death sightings of Elvis than there were of Jesus. Does that mean that Elvis was God incarnate?

How do you figure? History is history. Religion is religion. Religion is not history or science. Religion takes a leap of faith. History does not. Science does not.

You both are ignoring that the evidence for Jesus' death and resurrection is overwhelming.

To say miracles are difficult to explain scientifically is one thing, but to say they can't happen is another. The investigation of alleged miracles must be an historical investigation rather than a purely scientific one.

Other miracles pale in comparison to the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection is a fact of history, the other miracles are not hard to swallow. Christians absolutely believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

In order to confirm by way of proof the resurrection event, one can apply the same principles of evidence that would be acceptable as proof in a court of law. Many scholars in history have done so.

The evidence for Jesus' death and resurrection is overwhelming. The New Testament contains six independent testimonies to the fact of the resurrection. These six men (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul) wrote 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Included in their testimonies are various eyewitness accounts as well as reports of other interviewed witnesses of the risen Jesus, including one of over 500 people at one time.

Were these witnesses credible? Critical minds who have considered their testimony point out that these witnesses were both competent and honest. For example, they had no impure motives for their testimony, such as fear, money, or ambition. They had the opportunity to know the truth, were mentally capable, were not gullible, and the documents of their testimony are reliable. There was more than an adequate number of witnesses to verify truth. And there is no contrary evidence.

Simon Greenleaf, Professor of law at Harvard from 1833 to 1848 has been called the greatest authority on legal evidences in the history of the world. When Greenleaf applied legal evidences to the resurrection event, he concluded that it was an historical reality, and that anyone who examined the evidence for it honestly would be convinced this was the case.

In the 1930s a British journalist who was trained in the law, named Frank Morrison, set out to do the world a favor by once and for all exposing the superstition of Christ's resurrection. However, by using the test of evidence permitted in a court of law, he became convicted against his will of the truth of the resurrection, and detailed his findings in a book still in print entitled Who Moved the Stone.

In the 1990's, an American journalist, also trained in the law, by the name of Lee Strobel, interviewed many biblical scholars in a similar quest. His book The Case for Christ is a brilliant summary of the best modern scholarship on the subject. His study once again confirmed the biblical accounts as factual. (See resource list.)

C. S. Lewis, Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, acknowledged that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was a major factor in his conversion from atheism. Lewis became one of the twentieth century's greatest intellectual Christian proponents and writers. (See resource list.)

Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England said that, "...no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true."

The claim that the testimonies of the New Testament writers were "cooked up" does not hold water. The evidence against a "cooked up" Gospel is that while the various accounts are not contradictory, there are enough differences in the reports that it is clear that the various writers did not get together to compare notes. The evidence unquestioningly supports that the various accounts are truly independent.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence is the sheer conviction of the disciples. For 40 years after the resurrection, these men traveled throughout the land telling what they knew to be true. All of them were persecuted and all but one eventually put to death for their faith as testimony to the resurrected Jesus. People simply will not martyr themselves for what they believe to be a lie. People will only give their life for what they are absolutely convinced is true.

Many of the religious and political leaders of the day had every reason to quell the Christian movement by refuting the resurrection testimony. They were unable to disprove it. John R. W. Stott (see book on resource list) insists that the silence of Christ's enemies "is as eloquent a proof of the resurrection as the apostles' witness."

The early Christian leaders were not a superstitious people, unable to determine truth from reality. They lived in a civilized world of sophisticated Greek and Roman culture. These men were fishermen, carpenters, a physician (Luke), etc., and certainly understood the laws of nature. They attested to the miracles of Jesus in that framework.

Science does not disprove biblical miracles. Science depends upon observation and replication. Miracles are by their very nature unprecedented events. No one can replicate these events in a laboratory. Hence, science simply cannot be judge and jury as to whether or not these events occurred. The scientific method is useful for studying nature but not super-nature.

Biblical miracles are rare but poignant. The real question is not whether miracles occur, but whether God exists. If God exists, then miracles are possible. Anti-supernaturalism is atheism.

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/quest_miracles.html

 

[Hobbit]

Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I'd like to take a moment to point out a bit of logic shown in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." The kids at first conclude that Lucy must be lying about finding a magical land in the wardrobe because it's, well, logically impossible, just as some people disbelieve the Bible because it seems logically impossible. However, Professor Digory Kirk asked why they thought it was impossible and they replied that it was because another of the kids, Edmund, said they were playing and this would be the first time Lucy had ever lied like that. They said they were convinced it might even be insanity. "Well," said Professor Kirk, "She doesn't ever lie, and you only have to look at her to know she's not crazy, so, until further evidence is obtained, we must assume she is telling the truth." They later find out that she was truthful, after all.

Along those same lines, there are three possibilities. One is that the apostles and witnesses were liars. The second is that they were crazy. The third is that they were truthful. Well, it's hard to believe that every last one of them would face a torturous death (or exile) over a lie, especially when they had much to live for (Paul had a wife and family). It's also hard to believe that all the apostles plus hundreds of others all had the exact same hallucination. So, until further evidence is obtained, we must assume that they were truthful.

What do they teach is schools these days?

 

[MissileMan]

You both are ignoring that the evidence for Jesus' death and resurrection is overwhelming.

Anectdotes aren't evidence, they're testimony. Produce a living, breathing Christ and you'll convince me, that would be evidence.

 

[Hobbit]

Anectdotes aren't evidence, they're testimony. Produce a living, breathing Christ and you'll convince me, that would be evidence.

People have been convicted to die in America based on 'anecdotes.' It's enough for a court of law, which is weighed heavily in favor of the defendant. So why isn't it enough for you?

 

[MissileMan]

People have been convicted to die in America based on 'anecdotes.' It's enough for a court of law, which is weighed heavily in favor of the defendant. So why isn't it enough for you?

Walk into a police station and tell them you saw someone kill someone else. See if that person is convicted based solely on your say-so. Get some friends to go along with it too. Perhaps you can link an example of someone sentenced to death with no physical evidence against them. You know...no body or pieces thereof, no weapon, no confession.

 

[Dr Grump]

.

Like you, I believe Jesus existed. I do not believe he was the son of a god though. I don't believe there are any gods...

 

[Avatar4321]

Anectdotes aren't evidence, they're testimony. Produce a living, breathing Christ and you'll convince me, that would be evidence.

If you wait long enough, you might be lucky enough to see Him. But whether or not you do I can promise you that He lives.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Roman guards were very experienced at telling when people were dead.

And they were never wrong, not even once?

They routinely broke the legs of criminals to hasten their deaths on crosses. The guards came to Jesus, and saw that he was already dead, so they didn't need to break his legs.

Wow, they could tell just by looking, even though he would have died so recently he would still have the color of a live person? They're even smarter than modern day doctors.

When they pierced his side, blood and water flowed out, indicating that the sac around the heart was punctured. It would have filled with fluid as he was slowly asphixiated.

How did they know there was water in the flow? It seems to me if you mix water and blood, you still have something blood colored. Did they measure the specific gravity of it?

He was placed in a tomb, with hard-nosed Roman guards, men accustomed to death and war. But, when the women went to the tomb on Resurrection morning, the guards were missing. Roman guards could be put to death for deserting their posts.
What could have made them so fearful?

Are we to believe that a man beaten and bloodied, with a pierced heart, with no food or hydration for days in the tomb was strong enough to roll aside a huge stone and overcome more than one Roman guard?

Are we to believe a resurection story which is full of factual contradictions?

MOD EDIT: LINK
http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra_res.htm

1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.

4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus (peace be upon him) had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.

5. To whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Issa (peace be upon him) appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what the found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.

6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?

7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus (peace be upon him) before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!

8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus (peace be upon him) there, not in or near Jerusalem!

9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).

10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).




Its far more logical to believe Jesus survived his crucifixtion, and that the details of the non-self consistent Gospels are wrong, rather than to believe his was magically risen from the dead after his brain cells had died.

When you are left with only two possible explanations, one being highly unlikely but possible, and one being impossible, you pick the highly unlikely but possible one.

Therea re many other accounts of what happened after the crucifixtion that do not agree with the 4 Gospels of the Bible. The church has chosen not to include these accounts not based on anything other than that it disagrees with what is already in the Bible.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You can believe that if you'd like, that's your right. Not all of us belong to the Church of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking.

I'm in the Church of Keeb.

Why do other people's beliefs matter to you? Are you trying to convert them to your beliefs? Or do you feel threatened by the fact that they believe in anything at all?

Actually, the whole reason I started this thread was to screw with GOP Jeff, who claims that the Bible can be scientifically proven true. I know most Christians beliefs are based on faith, not some misguided idea that the bible can be proven. My belief in Keeb is based on faith, I can't prove it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That's the old "swoon" theory.

The swoon theory must be right, since rising from the dead is impossible

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm in the Church of Keeb.




Actually, the whole reason I started this thread was to screw with GOP Jeff, who claims that the Bible can be scientifically proven true. I know most Christians beliefs are based on faith, not some misguided idea that the bible can be proven. My belief in Keeb is based on faith, I can't prove it.

And yet I see that you've still not responded to my response on this thread...