1. virgin birth...which Islam believes in as well; 2. fulfilling old testament prophecy on the cross...which I know Islam believers do not believe in; 3. healing the blind, the sick; 4. making very bold assertions about his status (which i've posted here before)...ones that Moses would never make; 5. sinless life...which Islam believes in as well...and Moses certainly can't claim that. this is a HUGE one for a faith that looks at humanity as broken and inherently sinful.
These are all belief statements, not historical statements (i.e. provable facts). Your proof of these statements appears to be the strength of the conviction of your beliefs.
What if I replaced the all of the occurrences of Jesus and/or Christ in the Gospels with Buddha? Using your "nakedness of the narratives" argument this Newer Testament would have to be believed.
they are in the same sense that every other historical situation is "provable." she is absolutely making assertions of historical fact. the gospel writers and paul make assertions of historical fact, as well. i can't conclusively prove...while sitting at my desk this afternoon...that the revolutionary war happened. i can't conclusively prove any historical fact happened. we don't ask for conclusive proof in the courtroom. I don't understand your Buddha argument above, either. She's making the argument that these contemporaries of Jesus then go on to write stories that make themselves look like idiots...they all run....they all question....they're all doubters. This is like the "statement against interest" exception to the hearsay rule. It's deemed to be more reliable than other sorts of statements because people don't GENERALLY lie and make themselves look like asses in their lie.
The point made by the material KB7 cut and pasted above about "the nakedness of the narratives" is superficial. I can write a fictious story loaded with nakedness of the narratives. When KB7 reads this story, her/his conclusion has to be that this story is true since it contains nakedness of the narratives. As an example, suppose I said "Last night before I went to bed Buddha appeared before me and said 'I am the way, the truth, and the light. And your mother dresses you funny.'" Believe me?
no..but what you're talking about is more akin to what we see in Islam and even in the Church of Latter Day Saints. In early Christianity we have eyewitness accounts by a number of people...we have historical references to his death and resurrection. And we have other characters/entities that can affirm or deny the story, because they're factual assertions about public events. Not so with a mere "in the closet/on the mountaintop" sort of revelation from God. what you are speaking of is a typical Christian frustration with the Koran. That some 300 years later a guy says, "ummm...God told me Jesus didn't do all those things you say he did when you lived alongside him." When we talk about evidentiary reliability, I'm sure you can see the difference, even if you ultimately don't buy either side of the argument.
Well, since the evidence you're showing me is the bible, can I show you the Qura'an as my evidence? BTW, proving that Jesus was resurrected doesn't prove the entire bible to be reliable. It just proves that the one case you were trying to prove is true. You keep asking me if God wanted people to believe a lie, and the answer is YES. God will do as he wishes. Who are we to question our creator? You know what, let's play your game: "O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. " Does that count as evidence?
Well, it's a fact that the Bible lacks 100% textual accuracy. These little cases are where it makes a difference.
He did nothing that can be considered more miraculous than Moses' miracles. Making bold assertions about status (it's debateable if he did) is no miracle - why would Moses do it when they would be false if he made them? If he sacrificed himself, then I don't think he qualifies as sinless. However, if the Islamic belief holds true that he wasn't crucified, then he's sinless. Pick your poison. He healed the blind and sick, could resurrect the dead, he created a bird out of clay, etc etc... None of these things prove divinity more than Moses or Muhammad's miracles.
Whether you're evaluating the case for Christianity or evaluating the case for Christ's resurrection, you have to evaluate the case in its totality. You can't isolate certain evidence from the overall case and then conclude that it has no significance. That's what you're doing when you completely discount the significance of the nakedness of the evangelists' narratives. Nakedness of a narrative in and of itself has no bearing on whether the narrative is the truth. Christianity is a historical faith. It's based on real people, places, and events. The evangelists' narratives are about real people, places, and events. The nakedness of the evangelists' narratives is significant as an internal mark of truth. 1. Abraham Lincoln was shot. 2. Abraham Lincoln died. 3. Abraham Lincoln did not rise from the dead. 4. Abraham Lincoln did not claim to be God. 1. Christ was crucified. 2. Christ died. 3. Christ rose from the dead. 4. Christ claimed to be God. What's the difference between a "belief statement" and a "historical statement" to you? I guess a "belief statement" is one that you personally do not accept as a fact, and a "historical statement" is one that you personally do accept as a fact. Is it a "belief statement" or a "historical statement" that Christ was crucified? Is it a "belief statement" or a "historical statement" that Christ died? Whether Lincoln was shot is a historical issue, whether you believe he was shot or not. Whether Christ rose from the dead is a historical issue, whether you believe he did or not. Whether any historical figure rose from the dead is a historical issue. There just aren't many people arguing that Lincoln or George Washington rose from the dead. Why not? Because there's no evidence to believe that either of them did. When a person says it's a fact that Lincoln was shot, all he/she is saying is that he/she believes with certainty that Lincoln was shot. When you say it's a not a fact that Christ rose from the dead, all you're saying is that there's not enough evidence for you to believe with certainty that he did. Are you willing to believe that he did? I say—based on my faith in Christ—it is a fact that Christ rose from the dead, but my faith has no evidentiary value to anyone else. I've presented evidence to show that Christ rose from the dead. I haven't claimed that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ rose from the dead. I haven't claimed that the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead. I've claimed that the evidence shows that Christ rose from the dead, but I haven't tried to characterize the degree to which it does so. A person can weigh the evidence for himself/herself, just as a judge or a juror would, and make his/her own determination. I can't prove that Christ rose from the dead. I'm just giving reasons for a person to be willing to believe that he did. And I've only presented a tiny fraction of the evidence for Christ's resurrection. There's no reason to believe that Abraham Lincoln rose from the dead. There are reasons to believe that Christ rose from the dead. At the very least, the evidence is sufficient to allow a person to be willing to believe that Christ rose from the dead. The key word is "willing." Are you open to the possibility that Jesus the Christ rose from the dead? Even if you don't believe that he did, are you willing to believe? Can you respond specifically to the evidence I've presented? What are your ideas about the empty tomb? The Gospels state that Jesus' disciples and others saw the risen Lord Jesus. Do you think there was enough time between Christ's death and the writing of the Gospels for a resurrection myth about Christ to develop? Jesus' disciples proclaimed that he had risen from the dead. Do you think Jesus' disciples believed that he had risen from the dead or do you think they knew/believed he had not? If neither, what do you think they believed? Why would they believe that Jesus had risen from the dead if he had not? Why would they proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead if they knew/believed that he had not? Why would they be willing to die for what they knew/believed to be a lie?
Rocket104, No Worries, and Sane, Even if you don't believe that the Christian faith is the truth, are you willing to believe that it is? Are you willing to believe things that you don't believe—or aren't sure of? Are you willing to believe that the Christian faith is the truth? Though I'm using reason to share my Christian faith with you, faith in Christ is ultimately a matter of the heart. God said, "You shall seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:23).
No. I can use accounts from the Bible as evidence that Christ claimed to be God, that Christ was crucified, that Christ died, and that Christ rose from the dead. I can do that because the accounts regarding those matters are eyewitness accounts. Sometimes the writers themselves were the eyewitnesses and sometimes they reported what others had seen. According to the Bible, Jesus' disciples and others saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ. You can challenge the reliability of the biblical accounts, but they qualify as evidence nevertheless. I can use the nature of the Gospel accounts as evidence that the Gospel writers were honest people. I can use the disciples' behavior as evidence that Christ rose from the dead. The fact that they were transformed from disciples that disowned and deserted Jesus into disciples that were willing to die for him is evidence that Christ rose from the dead. I can use the Gospel accounts as evidence that Jesus' disciples and others were not hallucinating or seeing a ghost when they saw the risen Lord Jesus. The Bible states that Jesus is God. That's evidence that Jesus claimed to be God. The Bible quotes Jesus as saying, "Before Abraham was, I am!" That's evidence that Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus' disciples proclaimed that Jesus was God. That's evidence that Jesus claimed to be God. That's also evidence that he taught his disciples he was God. Evidence that Jesus claimed to be God is also evidence that Jesus was not a Muslim prophet. I've presented evidence to show that Jesus was crucified, that he died, and that he rose from the dead. I've presented evidence to show that Jesus claimed to be God. What evidence have you presented to show that: 1. Jesus was not crucified? 2. Jesus did not die? 3. Jesus did not rise from the dead? 4. Jesus did not claim to be God? You believe that Jesus did not claim to be God, that Jesus was not crucified, that Jesus did not die, and that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Did you reach those conclusions after evaluating the evidence? If so, what evidence led you to those conclusions? "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact" (Acts 2:32).
Statements #1 and #2 may be historical staements, while statement #3 and #4 are belief statements. Other believe statements would be Jesus was the Son of God, meaning divine Jesus was born of a virign, with a divine father Anything to do with the Holy Spirit For statements #1 and #2 to be historic there has to be evidence. In the case of Jesus Christ there is very little (which is not to say that JC did not walk the earth like the Bible says). No historian contemporary with JC's life mentions him and they certainly would have given his deeds, his huge following, and the religious movement he founded. 60 years after JC's death, some historians do mention him (actually these references are contested as later redactions from Christian scribes). The questionable references (Josephus and Tacitus) are relatively short in much larger works. These references are easily second hand and generational. This leaves the major historical references for JC in the NT Gospels. We do not know who wrote the Gospels, when they wrote it, or to whom they wrote it. The best secular historians can do is pin down the Gospels to the dates 60 CE to 150 CE (or later). Another concern is that we do not have a textual history of the NT books, so redactions could be understood for what they were. Some of the rock solid historic facts are wrong. The village/town of Nazareth did not exist before 150 CE (or says the archealogy record.) The writers of the Gospels made geographical mistakes wrt Galilee, which implies that the writers are not who they say they are. There are also internal inconsistencies bewtween the four Gospels, which calls into question their veracity. Mathew and Luke list different genealogies of JC through Joseph back to David. John has JC's mission at three years, while the other three Gospels have it at one. And finally the Gospels contains passages which are clearly not history, like the conversation JC has with the devil during his 40 days in the desert, the conversation JC has with the High Priest, and the conversation JC has with Pilate. Thus, the JC lived and died statements are belief statements since the historical record is so lacking.
And your point is? Do you really think a detailed discussion about JC's resurrection will refute my points against a historical JC?
Reporting what others had seen does not make an eyewitness account. Your logic here is weak. The Gospel writers Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses at all (assuming the writers have the histories the founding church fathers gave them). Given that Matthew is dependent on Mark, the writer Matthew is not likely who he says he is, wich brings into question the below statement: As I noted above (and you appeared to agree) this is as a stand alone argument is weak. The is a good explanation of the disciples' behavior; other equally as strong arguments could be made. But we could be talking fiction/myth here; thus, in the end this is a weak argument due to the questionable historical underpinnings.
You're right. I made a mistake. I should have written that some of the accounts are eyewitness accounts and some of the accounts are based on eyewitness testimony. The correct version is: I can use accounts from the Bible as evidence that Christ claimed to be God, that Christ was crucified, that Christ died, and that Christ rose from the dead. I can do that because some of the accounts regarding those matters are eyewitness accounts and some of the accounts are based on eyewitness testimony. According to the Bible, Jesus' disciples and others saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ. You can challenge the reliability of the biblical accounts, but they qualify as evidence nevertheless.
If you don't believe that Christ rose from the dead, you should be able to answer my questions without difficulty. Please present your arguments. Then everyone can see just how strong they are. What are your ideas about the empty tomb? The Gospels state that Jesus' disciples and others saw the risen Lord Jesus. Do you think there was enough time between Christ's death and the writing of the Gospels for a resurrection myth about Christ to develop? Jesus' disciples proclaimed that he had risen from the dead. Do you think Jesus' disciples believed that he had risen from the dead or do you think they knew/believed he had not? If neither, what do you think they believed? Why would they believe that Jesus had risen from the dead if he had not? Why would they proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead if they knew/believed that he had not? Why would they be willing to die for what they knew/believed to be a lie? At the very least, the evidence is sufficient to allow a person to be willing to believe that Christ rose from the dead. The key word is "willing." Are you open to the possibility that Jesus the Christ rose from the dead? Even if you don't believe that he did, are you willing to believe?
I said that "Jesus lived, died on a cross, and rose from the dead" are all belief statements, giving a detailed defense thereof. Your repsonse was to re-ask a series a questions wrt JC's ressurection: Seeing that you ignored my points wrt all things wrt JC were belief statements, I replied "And your point is?". Finally you replied ... Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. JC's resurrection is just said claim. What extraordinary proof do we have? I posit that there is none. The bulk of the claim is from Biblical scripture, which has shown itself to be not historically reliable and to be fallible. Now to your questions: 1. The empty tomb pericope is fiction. (The empty tomb stories from the Four Gospel are not even in complete agreement.) 2. It is likely that JC was Jewish overlay on existing Greek pagan savior cults on the first century CE. The pagan cults, like Mithraism, held their Savior (Mithra) descend from Heaven, died a sacrifical death, and was resurrected. Thus, the JC ressurection myth did not need time to develop, since the gentiles were already quite familar with the story from other cults. 3, 4, & 5. Earthly JC and his 12 disiples are likely mythical. As promised, a strong argument of how Christianity grew out of mythical resurrection tales ... Some liberal Biblical scholars still hold out that a historical JC walked the earth. They strip away most of what the Gospels describe, leaving JC a pious teacher/sage who had a small but dedicated following before his death. These scholars theorize that JC's followers were most unprepared for his death and that they devised ways to carry on afterwards, which included some type of hero worship of JC. As time went on, the hero worshiping tales grew to include resurrection. The resurrection tales included instructions from JC to his most dedicated followers on how to create a religion in his name.
