Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Lets apply this method to other areas of knowledge. The big bang is the best theory of the origin of the universe. Who saw it happen? Who was there to witness it? Or take the origin of life. Who was there to observe it? Both of these are extraordinary claims and yet we have no eyewitnesses. This must mean they did not happen. Big Bang theory is based on very complex mathematical models in turn based on actual observations and facts about the Universe. It has far more support than the Biblical record of Jesus. The Big Bang model came out as an explanation to the observations, not the other way around. It wasn't like, "hey, I have a great idea. Lets imagine the universe exploded into existence, so lets now try to prove it." It was more like, "Hey, all these things we see looks like they point to a common origin, perhaps there was a Big Bang, lets see if the math and other observations support it." And it does (almost). There are some scientists who have begun to ponder if the Big Bang model might be wrong. There are some alternative models which kind'a fit into the observations too, but the math isn't there yet to support it fully. The evidence for the historical Jesus is quite strong and early. For one its the best explanation for the founding of the church and its continued existence through time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. Did he now? Besides, back then they believed the Gospels were written by the names they've been given, but it isn't so. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. It is hearsay, since it's not the 500 people who writes the letter we're reading, but Paul's recollection of what the 500 people told him. That is the definition of hearsay. Paul tells on Mary, Mary tells on Vera, Vera tells on Bob, Bob tells on Philip... It's not the same as the direct accord. Can I ask you, is Luke an eyewitness account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Actually the differences in the gospel accounts are an advantage. Not when the first written Gospel has less detail and the later ones have more details. It's evidence of embellishment. Take the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Do all the accounts that were recorded the identical? No, they don't. But it's not like one story says, "The towers burned, but they didn't come down," and the next says, "The towers burned, but only two came down," and the last one says, "The towers burned and the whole New York was eradicated." That the first Gospels omitted important parts of the story only shows that they didn't know about those important parts. There can be differences in details, but there shouldn't be differences in the broad strokes of the story. That they saw Jesus after the resurrection and touched his body, is a pretty important part. But the first author didn't even know about this. Does it mean that they are not mean they are not true accounts? Of course not. Actually, they're not 100% true. Even the stories from 9/11. People remember things different, and some memories are false or slightly wrong. This is tested and researched, and if you read Psychology you will learn this. The personal accounts of events tend to shift and get fabricated over time, and we all implant false memories. This is not a speculation, but observed phenomenon. The fact that the first Gospels were written some 40 years after the events only make them less reliable, not more. An accurate account would have been if Jesus had told his disciples to write down everything and every detail while they were walking with him. But he didn't. Why? Didn't he know it would be important? Each author of the gospels share in many core events and have some differences. This does not mean these are embellished accounts. The gospels were written to persuade people to repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ for eternal. This was not unusual in ancient works. Something else that was not unusual in ancient works was embellishments. It was fairly common to add supernatural support to regular events to prove to the reader how important the story was. Just because the gospel accounts were written down 30-40 years after the events does not mean there were not written records by those who heard him teach and do miracles. In fact the miracles had the effect of "cementing" their memories of what happened much like most of us can remeber what we were doing when we first heard-saw the 911 events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 This guy is starting to sound more and more like LNC! I think it is either LNC, or another Habermas drone. I agree with you. He doesn't show any indication that he is listening to what others are saying and keeps spouting the same nonsense over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hans plays with Lottie, Lottie plays with Jane, Jane plays With Willie, Willie is happy again; Sukie plays with Leo, Sascha plays with Britt, Adolph builds a bonfire, and Rico plays with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. Did he now? Besides, back then they believed the Gospels were written by the names they've been given, but it isn't so. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. It is hearsay, since it's not the 500 people who writes the letter we're reading, but Paul's recollection of what the 500 people told him. That is the definition of hearsay. Paul tells on Mary, Mary tells on Vera, Vera tells on Bob, Bob tells on Philip... It's not the same as the direct accord. Can I ask you, is Luke an eyewitness account? Luke did write an account based on those who were eyewitnesses. If these accounts in I Corinthians 15 are hearsay why did the authorities in Jerusalem have to bribe the soldiers and why didn't they produce the body of Christ. Its well established the disciples were in no position mentally to steal it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm just demonstrating how weak the extraordinary method is. In fact there is better evidence for the existence of Christ than there is for any other figure in the ancient world. I'm sorry but you must be joking. We have BODIES of people from the ancient world, much more ancient than Jesus. We know more about the lives and deaths of the Egyptian Pharohs because we have actual physical remains of who they were and what they owned. We have nothing more about Jesus than we do about Santa Clause. There are not 500 eyewitness accounts there is an account written decades after the fact saying that there were 500 witnesses. I'm not joking. We have more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other figure. The evidence is not only in the NT but also in some secular writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 much like most of us can remeber what we were doing when we first heard-saw the 911 events. Eight years ago, vs. 40-70 for much of the wholly babble. Your arguments are getting weaker by the moment. Better ask gawd what to say next, since you obviously have no original thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabula Rasa Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Ah, there's no point in trying to talk reason into Amazed, so it's time for a thread hijack. Name Long Island Iced Tea Ingredients 1/2 ounce vodka 1/2 ounce gin 1/2 ounce light rum 1/4 ounce tequila 1/2 ounce triple sec 1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice -- or to taste 6 ounces cola -- or to fill Instructions Fill a mixing glass with ice. Add liquors and lemon juice (but NOT the cola). Shake and strain into a collins glass filled with ice cubes. Fill with cola. Garnish with a slice of lemon and a sprig of mint and serve with a straw and an iced tea spoon. Origin by Joe Robertson Servings 1 Glass Highball Strength Regular Difficulty Easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. You have a story about 500+ witnesses which is only given by Paul, a man that relied on visions and trances for his information. The 500+ witnesses are not confirmed anywhere else in the NT. The number of 500 is also in conflict with the size of the church at that time. The story was given to the Corinthians who weren't in a very good position to take an extended journey to Jerusalem to check the facts. The Gospel accounts contain many inconsistencies that make the "history" suspect. The evidence for the resurrection comes from cult writings designed to promote and sell the product, which leaves the door wide open for embellishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Who are the 500 people, where are the sworn affidavits? We don't know specifically. We do know the names of the apostles who saw the risen Christ. That would be enough in a court of law to convict someone. ] So why even bring up the 500 people in the first place if you know there's zero evidence to support this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The gospels were written to persuade people to repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ for eternal. This was not unusual in ancient works. Ya think? Hmmm...I wonder what people will do with the power of persuasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm not joking. We have more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other figure. The evidence is not only in the NT but also in some secular writers. You need to get off the crack pipe, AKA, what you heard in the pew or read in the xian bookstore. It's really hard to respond to ignorance like this. It's like trying to educate an adolescent who has already made up his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Since Jesus was God in the flesh and he made specific references to judgement, heaven and hell i have no choice but to deal with it. Ignoring it or trying to explain it away does not help. This is not the way to the truth. According to the scriptures God is not man of flesh. Jesus also claimed to have a God and it wasn't himself. There are many NT verses indicating Jesus was not God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Who are the 500 people, where are the sworn affidavits? We don't know specifically. We do know the names of the apostles who saw the risen Christ. That would be enough in a court of law to convict someone. ] So why even bring up the 500 people in the first place if you know there's zero evidence to support this? There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the JFK assination that we don't know the names of. Does that mean he was not assinated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. Oh please! Your 500 people is also hearsay. Do you have anything from these 500 people...any statements or anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. Oh please! Your 500 people is also hearsay. Do you have anything from these 500 people...any statements or anything? No. However we have the 4 gospel accounts and their letters which attest to the resurrection. Again, in a court of law this would be sufficent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 *Amazed thinks to him/herself* "I'm really making some brilliant arguments. They just can't see it because they have been blinded. Some real slam dunks here." *shakes head and feels a bit smug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Since Jesus was God in the flesh and he made specific references to judgement, heaven and hell i have no choice but to deal with it. Ignoring it or trying to explain it away does not help. This is not the way to the truth. According to the scriptures God is not man of flesh. Jesus also claimed to have a God and it wasn't himself. There are many NT verses indicating Jesus was not God. Look at the contexts. Jesus was a man and the Scriptures refer to him as one. Those same Scriptures also tells us he is God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Its my understanding that he wrote the book on rules and evidences that is still used today. It is not hearsay to have over 500 people to an event which is what we have for the resurrection. Oh please! Your 500 people is also hearsay. Do you have anything from these 500 people...any statements or anything? No. However we have the 4 gospel accounts and their letters which attest to the resurrection. Again, in a court of law this would be sufficent. Right. Because you read that a lawyer said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the JFK assination that we don't know the names of. Does that mean he was not assinated? Do you actually research things before you state them or just say them hoping we're as gullible as you are? Yes actually, many gave their account of that day to investigators. JFK assassination witness page Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Do you cry for someone who hasn't died, but whom you know you will never see again regardless? I mean, do you cry like someone just cut your arm off? To be perfectly honest, I don't think even most Christians in their heart of hearts actually think they're going to see anybody after they die. Why? Because their reaction to death is no different from anyone else, especially atheists. Typically, consolation with the idea that they'll see their loved one again comes around the same time they can be consoled by remembering the good times, and such. Basically, the worst of their anguish has passed by that point, and consolation is possible. It also means they don't really need to believe that they're going to see that loved one again. Christians do mourn just as deeply as aethist do. The difference is that the atheist has no hope while christians do have hope that we do indeed survive death. You didn't answer anything! You just stated the very premise I am objecting to. My contention is that your mourning as deeply as those with "no hope" of reunion, is evidence that you don't truly believe there will be a reunion. We mourn because we know our interaction with that person is at a permanent end. We mourn because we know we can't get them back. You mourn because... why? I mean, I'd feel sad knowing I was never going to see a person for possibly the next 40 to 50 years, but I will see them again after I die, right? Your "knowing better" should mitigate the suffering incurred by the loss of a loved one, but it doesn't. Why not? Because believing that you will see them again is not the most firmly held conviction at the moment of loss. You can only cling to it once your anguish has subsided. You also don't honestly believe in Hell, but that's a story for another day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 No. However we have the 4 gospel accounts and their letters which attest to the resurrection. Again, in a court of law this would be sufficent. It would not be sufficient. 4 accounts of people claiming 500 people witnessed something would not be sufficient at all. In fact, eyewitness accounts alone are not sufficient for anything! There needs to be phyiscal evidence to back it up and there isn't any. Even historical events, which are held to a lower standard than evidence in a courtroom, have to have more substance to be declared actual events than what we have for Jesus' resurrection. And usually with historical events, only the physical evidence is determined fact. You bring up JFK's assassination. He was assassinated: fact. Who did it and why are up for speculation and can have evidence brought up in favor of different theories but they are not fact. The eyewitness accounts as to why or who are not sufficient to give us any more facts than the physical evidence provided because they are unreliable. Exceedingly ancient, disputed and possibly corrupted accounts, such as what you have in the bible, are in no way sufficient evidence. Not in historical documentation or in a courtroom. Its called mythology, legend, folk lore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the JFK assination that we don't know the names of. Does that mean he was not assinated? What a laughable comparision. There is a video of his head being blown off, and there was also a body. The eyewitnesses had nothing to do with proving he was assassinated. Do we know who were the ones who witnessed the assination? If we didn't have the video could we still prove he was assinated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts