Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[LNC]

The story about a Roman guard being posted at the tomb is only found in Matthew, which is the same Gospel that states dead people rose from their graves and were seen by many in Jerusalem.

 

Yes, that's right.

 

Assuming they are eyewitness accounts, they only appear in cult writings.

The cult then determined the canon of the Bible.

 

Funny how you jump topics. You didn't address my point, you merely resort to hyperbole. BTW, no reasonable person considers Christianity to be a cult, surely you don't, do you?

 

Where does the Bible actually confirm that the disciples went to their deaths for their beliefs?

Outside of Stephen and James( the brother of John) being killed, I don't recall seeing that history.

 

You both asked and answered your own question in pointing out that Stephen and James were recorded in Acts (7 & 12) as having died for their beliefs. For now, since we have documentation that these men died for their beliefs, let me ask you a question, would the Apostles would have let these two men die as martyrs for a known lie? Would everyone who was in on it have been able to keep the conspiracy a secret? I think that stretches credulity.

[LNC]

...There is still that little problem of the Roman guard at the tomb that you have not explained.

The story about a Roman guard being posted at the tomb is only found in Matthew, which is the same Gospel that states dead people rose from their graves and were seen by many in Jerusalem.

That's right. So if a whole bunch of zombies walked on the streets and preached the Gospel, then why didn't the Talmud write about it? It would have been a very extraordinary situation, and it's completely forgotten. It's more likely both parts, and more of it, are just made up.

 

I'm not sure, we would both be speculating at that point wouldn't we? I prefer not to construct arguments from silence and I am not a mind reader.

[LNC]

You see? The question was for you to give your version of Creation/Evolution, and that's how you "answered" the question (i.e. with a question).

 

But it's okay when you do it, isn't it? It's just not okay when someone else does it. Because LNC is special.

 

As you can read from my response, my question was merely a clarifying question, not a dodge as is what I challenged earlier. There are different reasons for asking questions, some are legitimate questions looking for information and others are mere smokescreens to change the subject and to avoid answering a question. As you can see from my further responses on that thread, once the question was clarified I posted my thoughts. I cannot say that same for everyone on this thread regarding my questions. We are all special since there is no one else like any one of us. So, your special too, Han!

[LNC]

Someone please explain to me why I should bother continue to respond to LNC and trying to do the logically impossible of proving a negative when he doesn't get that it's his job to prove the resurrection of Jesus. I'd like to see one non-biblical evidence testifying that one of the miracles of Jesus is true. And I just love how he wants me to believe in talking snakes and magical zombies yet it's impossible for people to believe in something that's not true? And where's the non-scriptural evidence the apostles died for their faith? Last I checked, that was Catholic LEGEND, not historical fact. Even most scholars don't take those myths seriously. LNC has not demonstrated proof once in this thread that miracles are real. He's still not provided an alternative Christian explanation of how we came into being to counter evolution with and he wants me to somehow prove a negative? Someone explain to me why I should bother to continue to debate with someone who claims I'm persecuting him yet he can make fun of me. Just go read Jesus Interrupted yourself LNC if you actually care about anything anyone else says and if you still believe the gospels are historically accurate after that, then I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you because it's obvious you have no interest in anything that I or anyone else says. I wonder if LNC gets his debating techniques from William Lane Craig since he's making pretty much all the same arguments Craig made in this video: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/eschatol...bate/3971050071

 

First, you have to deal with the evidence that we do have, which you have not done. We have multiple attestation of the events, which, by the way, most scholars accept as historically based. You want to keep moving the goal posts in requiring more and more evidence and denying, for no legitimate reason, that which we have. If you want non-biblical evidence, go to the early church Fathers for attestation. Some of these were contemporaries with the authors (Polycarp was a contemporary of John).

 

Again, you ask for non-Scriptural evidence for the martyrdom of the Apostles, but ignore the documentation that we have in Acts. However, outside of a reference to James' death in Josephus (Antiquities 20, Chapter 9), other than that it comes from tradition. However, we still have two disciples who went to their death and if some knew that they were going to their death for a lie (even if they didn't know) what are the chances that they would have let it happen or continued in the lie after Stephen was stoned? I think it is extremely doubtful given what Christianity stands for and what the rest of them knew that they were facing that they would have continued in a known charade. Also, I don't hear of too many scholars who seriously question whether the early Christians faced persecution and death for their beliefs, so I find that your skepticism is on weak footing.

 

I haven't demonstrated that miracles are real and you haven't demonstrated that they are not. So, we go with the eyewitnesses and unless we have valid grounds to doubt their testimony, which you haven't given other than your anti-supernatural bias, then we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

I don't belief I ever claimed that you were persecuting me, I don't think someone ridiculing my beliefs and making jest is the same as persecution. Also, where did I make fun of you? I don't recall doing so, but if you think I have I offer my apologies, that is not my intention as I think the subject matter is too important to resort to such behavior.

 

I find William Lane Craig a worthy debater and a very knowledgeable person, however, I am no William Lane Craig. However, Craig, Gary Habermas and others make the same arguments as they are legitimate arguments and based on solid historical and philosophical bases. Craig has debated Bart Ehrman on this subject and I believe that Ehrman was way out of his league in the debate. If you read the arguments that he made in the transcript to which I linked earlier, you will find that Ehrman resorted to the highly speculative and completely unsupported "twin' argument, claiming that Jesus had an previously unknown twin who happened to come back after the crucifixion only to be confused with the real Jesus. That is the length that skeptics like Ehrman have to go to support their anti-supernatural presupposition.

 

Actually, the arguments that Ehrman is making these days were made over a century ago by Albert Schweitzer and even though they have been thoroughly picked apart and discarded, it seems that Ehrman wants to "resurrect" them. Well, at least he believes in the resurrection of some things (even if they are badly thought out ideas and arguments).

[LNC]

I wonder if LNC gets his debating techniques from William Lane Craig since he's making pretty much all the same arguments Craig made in this video: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/eschatol...bate/3971050071

There's no random coincident that LNC argues like W.L. Craig. LNC comes from Craig's forum.

 

That is from where rsmartin invited me over last year, good memory!

[Ouroboros]

That is from where rsmartin invited me over last year, good memory!

Yes, it works, in rare occasions.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure, we would both be speculating at that point wouldn't we? I prefer not to construct arguments from silence and I am not a mind reader.

But God is silent...

 

So what do you construct from that?

[LNC]

But God is silent...

 

So what do you construct from that?

 

God is silent only to those who refuse to listen.

 

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear.", Jesus (Matthew 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8; 14:35) It seems to have been a message that he needed to repeat often.

[Neon Genesis]

First, you have to deal with the evidence that we do have, which you have not done. We have multiple attestation of the events, which, by the way, most scholars accept as historically based. You want to keep moving the goal posts in requiring more and more evidence and denying, for no legitimate reason, that which we have. If you want non-biblical evidence, go to the early church Fathers for attestation. Some of these were contemporaries with the authors (Polycarp was a contemporary of John).

Uh, I want evidence, not forgeries or historically inaccurate second hand information. Quoted from Wikipedia,

The chief sources of information concerning Polycarp are two: the letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the martyrdom of Polycarp and the passages in Irenaeus' Adversus Haeresis. Other sources are the epistles of Ignatius, which include one to Polycarp and the one to the Smyrnaeans and the Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians; Other sources as the Life of Polycarp or excerpts from Tertullian and Eusebius of Caesarea are considered or largely unhistorical or based on the previous material. In 1999 some 3rd to 6th century Coptic fragments about Polycarp have been published.

 

Again, you ask for non-Scriptural evidence for the martyrdom of the Apostles, but ignore the documentation that we have in Acts. However, outside of a reference to James' death in Josephus (Antiquities 20, Chapter 9), other than that it comes from tradition. However, we still have two disciples who went to their death and if some knew that they were going to their death for a lie (even if they didn't know) what are the chances that they would have let it happen or continued in the lie after Stephen was stoned? I think it is extremely doubtful given what Christianity stands for and what the rest of them knew that they were facing that they would have continued in a known charade. Also, I don't hear of too many scholars who seriously question whether the early Christians faced persecution and death for their beliefs, so I find that your skepticism is on weak footing.

Since when does Catholic traditions = history? Furthermore, most scholars don't regard Acts as being historically accurate nor is the reference to James' persecution is considered historically reliable. By using Acts as "proof", you're resorting to circular logic. Using Acts to prove Acts is like trying to use the Koran to prove the Koran. It makes no sense.

 

 

I haven't demonstrated that miracles are real and you haven't demonstrated that they are not. So, we go with the eyewitnesses and unless we have valid grounds to doubt their testimony, which you haven't given other than your anti-supernatural bias, then we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

So, can you list all the events of the canon gospels' accounts of the resurrection stories beginning with the women arriving at the tomb towards the end of the books in chronological order?

 

I don't belief I ever claimed that you were persecuting me, I don't think someone ridiculing my beliefs and making jest is the same as persecution. Also, where did I make fun of you? I don't recall doing so, but if you think I have I offer my apologies, that is not my intention as I think the subject matter is too important to resort to such behavior.

Earlier in the thread you ridiculed my hypothetical alternative solution to what happened to Jesus' body as taking more faith to believe in than the resurrection instead of actually discussing it.

 

 

 

 

Actually, the arguments that Ehrman is making these days were made over a century ago by Albert Schweitzer and even though they have been thoroughly picked apart and discarded, it seems that Ehrman wants to "resurrect" them. Well, at least he believes in the resurrection of some things (even if they are badly thought out ideas and arguments).

And yet you're also using decades old arguments that have long since been debunked by biblical scholars.

[Ouroboros]

God is silent only to those who refuse to listen.

That's a lot'a BS.

 

Before I lost my faith, I wanted to hear God's voice and guidance, and even prayed. But I heard nothing; I got nothing. So that's just bovine excrement.

 

I guess you hear voices in your head then?

 

When you hear that voice in your brain, how do you know it's God and not you, or the Devil, a demon, or perhaps another kind of spirit from some other religion, or perhaps even a ghost?

[RationalOkie]

BTW, no reasonable person considers Christianity to be a cult, surely you don't, do you?

 

Are you serious LNC? Everyone here and the rest of the rational world DOES INDEED view Christianity as a cult. Hell, the first two definitions in my dictionary say:

"Cult"

1: formal religious veneration : worship

2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual

 

It's also a delusion: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

[centauri]

The story about a Roman guard being posted at the tomb is only found in Matthew, which is the same Gospel that states dead people rose from their graves and were seen by many in Jerusalem.

 

Yes, that's right.

Then its accuracy is questionable.

 

Assuming they are eyewitness accounts, they only appear in cult writings.

The cult then determined the canon of the Bible.

 

Funny how you jump topics. You didn't address my point, you merely resort to hyperbole.

Funny how you rely on cult writings as proof of things.

 

BTW, no reasonable person considers Christianity to be a cult, surely you don't, do you?

You do like to ignore the obvious don't you?

Christianity has cult attributes in spades.

The leader claims to have all authority and power, and that he will rule over a glorious kingdom.

The leader claims to be the only conduit to salvation and promises a better life for his followers.

The leader promises great rewards if people devote their full attention to him and obey his commands.

The leader tells people that if they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they can live forever.

The leader promises to kill those that offend him, and simple unbelief is enough to offend him.

The leader overturns traditional regulations, and claims to bring disharmony and change to the old order.

The leader promises that his followers will have great miracle working powers if they believe in him.

The leader calls his followers "sheep", while telling them that they are superior to others.

The leader is to be the center of attention at all times.

 

Where does the Bible actually confirm that the disciples went to their deaths for their beliefs?

Outside of Stephen and James( the brother of John) being killed, I don't recall seeing that history.

 

You both asked and answered your own question in pointing out that Stephen and James were recorded in Acts (7 & 12) as having died for their beliefs. For now, since we have documentation that these men died for their beliefs, let me ask you a question, would the Apostles would have let these two men die as martyrs for a known lie?

 

That's two disciples out of how many?

There is no confirmation in the Bible that the others died because of their beliefs.

Would Japanese leaders have sent kamikazi pilots in WWII to their deaths for a known lie?

Would Protestants have let Thomas Cranmer, the Protestant archbishop heretic that was burned at the stake by Catholics, die for a known lie?

[par4dcourse]

Just finished the book and loved every page. Ripped the wholly babble a new one.

 

QUOTE (LNC @ Jun 23 2009, 08:58 AM)

God is silent only to those who refuse to listen.

What I call a hunch xians think is sky daddy talking. Listen! GAwd just told me I want a cheeseburger for lunch!Praise be!

Invade Iraq? Well, if you say so gawd!

Numbnuts.

[Guest Davka]

When there are contemporaries who can debunk any legend, then it is too soon for legend to develop. We can and do debunk religions like Mormonism, Scientology, cargo cults and others.

Yet they persist, in spite of the debunking. In fact, in the case of Mormonism and Scientology, they grow and spread.

 

If the eyewitnesses of Jesus were spreading falsehood it would have been recorded by contemporaries.

There were many contemporaries among the Jews who did challenge what the Christians were teaching, and who specifically said that Jesus' disciples had taken his body away. But since the NT says that this was a false claim spread by the enemies of the faith, you choose to believe the NT and discount the writings of the debunkers.

 

Oddly enough, this is precisely what Mormons and Scientologists do when confronted with evidence that debunks the foundations of their respective faiths: they choose to disregard the evidence and hold to the accounts given in their own writings. Hmm.

[Antlerman]

But God is silent...

 

So what do you construct from that?

 

God is silent only to those who refuse to listen.

 

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear.", Jesus (Matthew 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8; 14:35) It seems to have been a message that he needed to repeat often.

Others can say the same thing about Christians who refuse to listen. Maybe you're refusing to listen.

 

How do you judge others? Through your interpretation of the Bible? How do you do this without subjectively painting God the way you want to see him? Goodness knows, there's enough denominations out there to prove that's a fact of what happens. Is it valid to you when the Catholic says that you are not hearing God according to them because you are stiff-necked and in rebellion, "refusing" to listen, quoting that verse at you??

 

How arrogant of you is it then when you say that of others, armed with nothing more than them which is the "truth" through your eyes?

 

Seriously. To me, having an arrogant attitude is fruit bearing witness to just how much one really "hears God". Or is it because you have the truth, it's OK to judge in God's stead? Indeed.

 

Take the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to pass judgment on others.

[Ouroboros]

Take the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to pass judgment on others.

I think in this case it's more like a sequoia than a beam.

[LNC]

Uh, I want evidence, not forgeries or historically inaccurate second hand information. Quoted from Wikipedia,

The chief sources of information concerning Polycarp are two: the letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the martyrdom of Polycarp and the passages in Irenaeus' Adversus Haeresis. Other sources are the epistles of Ignatius, which include one to Polycarp and the one to the Smyrnaeans and the Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians; Other sources as the Life of Polycarp or excerpts from Tertullian and Eusebius of Caesarea are considered or largely unhistorical or based on the previous material. In 1999 some 3rd to 6th century Coptic fragments about Polycarp have been published.

 

OK, exactly where do you cite anything about forgeries? This reference doesn't mention anything about forgeries. Also, you seem to continue to ignore the Gospels and Paul as sources and I wonder why that is the case. Finally, the Wikipedia reference does cite non-controversial sources that cite Polycarp's life and we do have his letter to the Philippians which is not disputed either, so I am not sure what your point is here except to take exception with any reference pointed out to you without just cause.

 

Since when does Catholic traditions = history? Furthermore, most scholars don't regard Acts as being historically accurate nor is the reference to James' persecution is considered historically reliable. By using Acts as "proof", you're resorting to circular logic. Using Acts to prove Acts is like trying to use the Koran to prove the Koran. It makes no sense.

 

Again, you ignore most of what I have said and focus in on one point. Second, you are wrong about Acts, most scholars consider Luke to be a historian of high caliber. Sir William Ramsey said of Luke, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Luke's accounts have been verified by archeaological finds over 30 times adding more weight of credibility to his accounts. The more we discover, the more we realize how reliable Luke/Acts is as a reference source.

 

So, can you list all the events of the canon gospels' accounts of the resurrection stories beginning with the women arriving at the tomb towards the end of the books in chronological order?

 

I treat the Gospels as historical documents and haven't addressed the miracles, only those accounts that have been multiply attested and are generally accepted by even skeptical scholars. For instance, skeptics generally agree that the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. They generally agree that there was a dramatic change in the disciples after these events. They generally agree that these changes are linked to their claims of having seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion. I am not sure what you mean with your statement about the women, but I am only referring to that information that is generally accepted, even by skeptical scholars.

 

Earlier in the thread you ridiculed my hypothetical alternative solution to what happened to Jesus' body as taking more faith to believe in than the resurrection instead of actually discussing it.

 

I believe that ridicule is a stronger term than what happened; however, if you felt that I ridiculed you, I apologize for that as it was not my intention. However, I do think that the alternative explanations are extremely weak in explanatory power and scope; however, that is not ridicule of you personally, just these theories.

 

And yet you're also using decades old arguments that have long since been debunked by biblical scholars.

 

Really, which ones have I used that have been debunked via solid historical and philosophical argumentation?

[LNC]

God is silent only to those who refuse to listen.

That's a lot'a BS.

 

Before I lost my faith, I wanted to hear God's voice and guidance, and even prayed. But I heard nothing; I got nothing. So that's just bovine excrement.

 

I guess you hear voices in your head then?

 

When you hear that voice in your brain, how do you know it's God and not you, or the Devil, a demon, or perhaps another kind of spirit from some other religion, or perhaps even a ghost?

 

People can speak in more ways than vocally. My earthly Father sends me cards and speaks to me through them. My heavenly Father has left the Bible and speaks to me through it.

[Antlerman]

People can speak in more ways than vocally. My earthly Father sends me cards and speaks to me through them. My heavenly Father has left the Bible and speaks to me through it.

As he does the Catholic. As he does the Jew. As he does that dude in the church down the road you disagree with and think he's going to hell, as he does those who believe things entirely differently than you. At least they all claim the same thing.

 

But of course you might think you're different; God's super-special enlightened one, who know he's right and everyone else is wrong?

 

BTW, he didn't exactly "leave the Bible". It evolved. Say... there's your proof of life evolving! God used evolution to "leave the Bible", and he used evolution to create man. I doubt you believe *poof* and then the Bible was, so there you see God uses evolution.

 

By their fruits....

[Ouroboros]

People can speak in more ways than vocally. My earthly Father sends me cards and speaks to me through them. My heavenly Father has left the Bible and speaks to me through it.

That's just another very unreliable source. Too many interpretations, and the possibility that a "book" with "cards" are from the wrong guy, or perhaps another book/cards are from the real guy.

 

Since you admit that some historical documents could possibly be wrong (when we were talking about the miracles of Apollonius) then how can you be certain the "Bible" books are the right cards from the right guy? The cards say so? Well, if a Blue Book from Bob said it was all true and it was from Bob, then it must be believed, mustn't it?

 

So what does a postcard from God tell you when it commands Joshuah to go out and kill enemies in the name of God? Do you feel good about that? Does it fill you with joy? Slaughter kids and women in the name of Jesus, that would be your dream fulfilled? Isn't that what God's "cards" tell you he did? And don't tell me Jesus didn't command it, because I've heard so my ears ache that Jesus existed in Heaven before he was born, and that he is fully God, blah blah, so Jesus did command Israel to kill people left and right, just to expand God's territory.

 

That's your moral guidelines? That is what you call revelation? That is how God speak to you? Reading old archaic text, badly translated, and describing some tribal patriarchs beliefs? You know, Santa Claus is nicer.

[LNC]

BTW, no reasonable person considers Christianity to be a cult, surely you don't, do you?

 

Are you serious LNC? Everyone here and the rest of the rational world DOES INDEED view Christianity as a cult. Hell, the first two definitions in my dictionary say:

"Cult"

1: formal religious veneration : worship

2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual

 

It's also a delusion: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

 

I noticed that you were quite selective in what you pulled for your definition. According to that then most of the world are cult members, including many atheists. Again, no reasonable person considers Christianity to be a cult. According to your definition, all materialists are delusional as well since according to a naturalist worldview a person could never prove that anyone exists outside of themselves; nor, could the person prove that they exist. Can you tell if you are a naturalist/materialist/physicalist (one who believes that the physical world is all that exists? Can you also tell me what evidence that you have that God doesn't exist since that is germane to your understanding that I am delusional? You are the one who maintains that there is evidence that God doesn't exist if I read your definition above correctly when you say, "maintained despite evidence to the contrary." So, what is that evidence? Can you give me evidence that anyone outside of yourself exists and is not a product of an overactive brain? Can you prove that you are anything more than a brain in a vat or the thought of another being?

[Ouroboros]

I noticed that you were quite selective in what you pulled for your definition.

And that comes from Mr Super-Selective himself!

[LNC]

Then its accuracy is questionable.

 

That doesn't necessarily follow from your argument. Maybe you can give me a reason why it would be questionable beyond the fact that it is a single witness.

 

Funny how you rely on cult writings as proof of things.

 

You continue to ignore the argument and rely on ad hominem rather than offering a counter argument.

 

You do like to ignore the obvious don't you?

Christianity has cult attributes in spades.

The leader claims to have all authority and power, and that he will rule over a glorious kingdom.

The leader claims to be the only conduit to salvation and promises a better life for his followers.

The leader promises great rewards if people devote their full attention to him and obey his commands.

The leader tells people that if they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they can live forever.

The leader promises to kill those that offend him, and simple unbelief is enough to offend him.

The leader overturns traditional regulations, and claims to bring disharmony and change to the old order.

The leader promises that his followers will have great miracle working powers if they believe in him.

The leader calls his followers "sheep", while telling them that they are superior to others.

The leader is to be the center of attention at all times.

 

Which leader are you talking about? If you are right and Jesus is dead, why worry what he said? If Jesus was right, then you have something to worry about, you have reason to spend hours on this site trying to convince yourself that you are right and Jesus was wrong. But, if Jesus was who he said he was and you are wasting your time trying to convince yourself that he wasn't, you are missing the opportunity that he gives you. Still, if he was wrong, why bother getting so upset about it? I don't think you are convinced that he was wrong.

 

That's two disciples out of how many?

There is no confirmation in the Bible that the others died because of their beliefs.

Would Japanese leaders have sent kamikazi pilots in WWII to their deaths for a known lie?

Would Protestants have let Thomas Cranmer, the Protestant archbishop heretic that was burned at the stake by Catholics, die for a known lie?

 

Do I need to provide more examples? What more would it prove? The point is made that they either died knowing that it was all a lie or others let them die knowing it was a lie. Either way, I have made my point.

 

The Japanese didn't claim a moral system like Christianity, nor is there any evidence that they were following something that they knew was a lie. Again, Thomas Cranmer didn't die for a known lie, nor did the Protestants let him go to his death for a known lie. He died for what he believed and recanted his former Catholic statements. I don't see the parallel.

[LNC]

Yet they persist, in spite of the debunking. In fact, in the case of Mormonism and Scientology, they grow and spread.

 

You are making a different point here. What I am saying is that, unlike Mormonism and Scientology, which we have evidence to show that they are historically inaccurate, the same was not done in the case of early Christians. No one stepped forward and produced the body of Jesus or evidence that it was stolen. So, your analogy falls flat.

 

There were many contemporaries among the Jews who did challenge what the Christians were teaching, and who specifically said that Jesus' disciples had taken his body away. But since the NT says that this was a false claim spread by the enemies of the faith, you choose to believe the NT and discount the writings of the debunkers.

 

Oddly enough, this is precisely what Mormons and Scientologists do when confronted with evidence that debunks the foundations of their respective faiths: they choose to disregard the evidence and hold to the accounts given in their own writings. Hmm.

 

Quite the contrary, I believe the NT account that people challenged the Apostles, especially Paul. Yes, they challenged the teaching, but not the fact of the resurrection. They challenged the teaching on the basis of its challenge to their power, but not according to the interpretation of the OT. Nor did they produce evidence that the resurrection did not happen.

 

If you think that Christianity is false, produce the evidence and let's discuss it. I am not here to disregard evidence, in fact, I say if you have it, bring it into the conversation.

[Ouroboros]

Nor did they produce evidence that the resurrection did not happen.

How? How could anyone then have given proof any more than us today that the resurrection didn't happen? I bet Paul argued exactly like YOU! "Give me the proof Jesus wasn't resurrected," and the poor Roman schmucks gave him the weird looks just like we give you!

 

The Jews obviously (according to the Bible) said that the disciples had taken the body and hid it. But according to the Bible, they invented that explanation. Regardless, they had an explanation, and since the body was hidden, how could the prove anything.

 

And when it comes to disciples going to death for their belief, first of all we can't be sure they did, and secondly, if they did, we can't be sure exactly what they went to death for. Perhaps they died for the same reasons Jews died in the concentration camps? Does 6,000,000 deaths prove Judaism is true, and Christianity false? It should, since they're definitely a lot more.

 

How about Muslims dying at the hands of the crusaders? Does it prove Islam to be true? It MUST! You can't give one group and one belief a special treatment and separate everyone else from the same treatment, Mr Selective.