Dear Christians,

[♦ ficino ♦]

I've been watching this thread, and I've been waiting for someone to drop this other shoe, but it hasn't fallen yet. So here I am with my size 11s.

 

So, Sadie, you believe that these "healings" in other religions are the work of "Satan"? You're actually saying that the "Father of Lies and Destruction" is capable of doing the "good" work of God's Holy Spirit? My, my. I wonder what YOUR bible has to say about this? Oh, don't fret. I won't make you search for the scripture. I've got a bible handy.

22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebub," and, "By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons."

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?

24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.

27 "No one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

28 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;

29 "but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"

30 because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."

You see, when anyone says that SATAN is doing what only GOD can do, then THAT is BLASPHEMY against the Holy Spirit.

 

IF "healings" are occurring ANYWHERE, and to ANYONE, then by default it is GOD (Bible-God) who, by His mercy, is behind it. NOT SATAN. "Jesus" says that the devil would NOT perform an action against himself. (In other words, why would Satan "heal" anyone?)

 

Sadie, giving credit to Satan in all these "healings" is a no-no. You can't discredit other religions' "healings" by invoking the "devil did it". The BEST that you can do is admit that they are ALL legitimate, and ALL done by your God. Which means your religion isn't all that special or unique. Is it?

 

 

Now, how's THAT for tossing a "monkey wrench" into the works?

 

 

 

Hi Mr. Grinch. Stimulating point. I'm putting on my old bible hat, dusty now and with holes from where I left it years ago, and I'm trying to imagine how a fundy could reply. What do you think of the passages in Revelation where the beast who had a mortal wound is healed, leading many to false belief, and the beast and the false prophet work various miracles? If Satan can be behind those, why not behind other miracles in our own time?

 

I Corinthians says that when the Corinthians worshiped idols they experienced similar phenomena to speaking in tongues, "however you have been moved," i.e. in Greek "carried along". My Catholic pastor, a biblical scholar, always interpreted this as Paul claiming the Corinthians spoke in tongues back when they were pagans. Paul's point might be taken as consistent with a belief by Paul that the Corinthians' tongue-speaking in their pagan days was a natural phenomenon. I'd guess, though, given Paul's overall biases, that he'd incline to think they spoke in tongues by demonic inspiration, since he believed that idol worshipers were not just in error but were worshiping demons. That's why he says love is better evidence of a person's state of grace than speaking in tongues is.

 

The logic of the verses you quoted goes against those who claim that, if Jesus does a miracle, it could be done by demonic power. I don't think those verses go against the converse of this, i.e. that if a miracle is done, it must be done by God. Demonic miracles performed by others seem to me consistent with your gospel quotation.

 

The fundy would have to find a relevant point of difference between "good" miracles done by God and "bad" ones done through saints of other religions. The point of difference to me seems to collapse into Christian doctrinal purity. So I agree with you that arguments for truth of a single doctrinal system are circular when they rest on evidence from miracles. I think I differ with you in finding that circularity in the NT itself.

 

I'd be interested in your take, Mr. Grinch - not that the difference is a huge thing for me, of course, since we agree that fundamentalism is a dangerous, false crock. Maybe we're actually not differing.

 

Going back to Paul: I think the love thing is really important. Lots of non-Christians are very loving. Sadie, isn't that best explained by just realizing that we're all humans in this together with our strengths and weaknesses?

 

bye

[Checkmate]

Hey ficino.

 

As far as the Revelations/Beast "healing", all I can say is, "So what?" What does a "monster", being able to "heal itself", prove or demonstrate? I would certainly hope and expect a supernatural, evil power to be able to do such a paltry thing.

 

But as far as "healing" people? My ultimate point is this: IF "Satan" wanted to so confound the plans of "God" by mimicry, then why not go "whole hawg"? Why just heal a few? Why not set up shop and heal billions of people, JUST to draw them away from "Jesus"? THAT would certainly be more effective than one here, one there (a la Bible-god).

 

The answer is obvious. No such thing is occuring, has occurred, nor WILL IT ever occur, because it is all bullshit.

 

The fact is that all of these so-called "miracles" and "supernatural occurrences" are nothing more than wishful thinking and make believe. Attributing such fancy to either "God" or "Satan" is just further evidence of lunacy.

 

But YOU know that, as well as I. We're just poking the jab, and seeing how many Christians we can make squirm.

 

I can't wait to read what Sadie has to say. It ought to be good for a chuckle. I love a good spin doctoring.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I hope she thinks about it and says something, a refutation or anything is better than what some seem to prefer: i.e. silence and then repeat the SAME EXACT statement elsewhere.

[All Gods Fail]

I hope she thinks about it and says something, a refutation or anything is better than what some seem to prefer: i.e. silence and then repeat the SAME EXACT statement elsewhere.

 

I wouldn't hold your breath, dude - fundy thinking is a bit too limiting to not rely on dogma.

[Guest hnsq]

I stumbled upon this site, and these message boards, and felt I should address the original question as to evidence of the Christian God. First, your conditions must be addressed. I accept that most people on these boards are hesitant about the contents of the Bible (miracles, healings, etc), so I will not mention those such things. I will operate under two assumptions, both of which are hard data.

 

1. the New Testament as a historical document

2. the existance (but not necessarily the truth) of the Christian religion as we find it today.

 

For those questioning the validity of the Bible as a historical document, there is countless literature on the subject, and in reality the fact is not disputed in even the most un-Christian of academic circles. If you do have any questions or doubt on the historical validity of the events in the New Testament, I will be more than happy to elaborate on the subject.

 

While empirical proof of God's existence or lack thereof is a subject too extensive to address in full, and one on which I do not have the facts to adequately discuss, I will concentrate on one main belief in the Christian faith, The Resurrection.

 

When considering the resurrection of the man named Jesus, there are five possible theories.

 

1. Christianity - Jesus rose, Christians got it right

2. Hallucination - a non-deliberate lie

3. Myth - the resurrection is, in actuality, only symbolically true

4. Conspiracy theory - a deliberate lie

5. Swoon - didn't actually happen - Jesus never really died

 

In the following, I will go through theories 2-5 and the flaws in them which prove them to be impossible and improbable. Again, I will do so based just on the two previously stated assumptions.

 

Theory #2 - Hallucination

 

Personally, if I saw a dead man walking and talking, I would immediately think I was hallucinating, however with relation to Jesus, this was not the case.

 

There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual and subjective. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the disciples without Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the two disciples at Emmaus, the fisherman on the shore, James, and even 500 people at once (which consequently Paul says most of which are still alive, challenging the reader to check the truth of the story by questioning eyewitnesses)

 

Hallucinations usually last a few seconds, maybe minutes, and rarely hours. This 'hallucination' went on for 40 days.

 

Hallucinations happen once, to individual people. If as few as three people have the same hallucination, psychologically, it is not a hallucination.

 

The people in the stories spoke with Jesus. Unless one has a mental disorder, figments of imagination do not hold profound conversations.

 

If it were a hallucination, the Jews would have produced the body and stopped the rumor of the resurrection.

 

Theory #3 - Myth

 

The myth theory contains two layers, a non-divine Jesus who did not rise, and a divine Jesus who did in fact rise. According to the myth theory, the actual events were the first layer, and over time, there was a transference to the second layer. There is absolutely no historical evidence that the first layer even existed, much less that the story evolved.

 

The literary style of the resurrection stories are not written as myths. Any literary scholar who knows myths can confirm this. Myths contain overblown, exaggerated events. There is nothing arbitrary in the resurrection story. Everything fits in, and everything is meaningful. Compare the writings of the four gospels to the literary style in the 'Gospel of Peter', a forgery dated roughly at 125 A.D. The style of that work is drastically different, and overblown, showing a style nothing like the four gospels of the New Testament.

 

There was not enough time for a myth to develop. Myths take generations to develop, the myth of the resurrection had to develop within 30 years of Jesus’ death. Note, I realize that the dates of the original copies of the gospels is still disputed, so the above timeline is based upon Paul's letters. A scholar named Julius Muller from the 19th century challenged his contemporaries to give any example of a great myth/legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within 30 years of that figure's death. To date, no one has been able to answer this challenge.

 

The most important point of the myth theory is often overlooked today. The empty tomb was discovered by women. At that time period, women were not believed, and were not trustworthy as eyewitnesses. If a myth were to develop, men would have discovered the tomb, not women.

 

Theory #4 - Conspiracy Theory

 

While Jesus was with the disciples, he sustained them, but after he died, and if he did not appear, who made them act?

 

The main point in this arguement is the historical fact that no one, saint, sinner, weak, strong, Christian, heretic, no one, ever confessed, freely, under pressure, bribe, even torture that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake, a lie or a deliberate deception. Even when they did break, they denied that Jesus was the Christ, worshiped Caesar, but never once did anyone claim the resurrection was a conspiracy.

 

There was no possible motive for such a lie. Lies are told to gain something, the only thing the disciples gained from this 'lie' was hatred, scorn, persecution, imprisonment, torture, exile, they were boiled alive, roasted, beheaded, disemboweled and fed to lions.

 

If the resurrection were a lie, there is a good chance the Jews would have eventually produced a corpse, yet one was never produced.

 

Theory #5 - Swoon

 

Jesus could not have survived the crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful, the Roman law even put the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape.

 

The Roman sodlier did not even break Jesus' legs, as was done to any crucified criminal to hasten the death.

 

John, an eyewitness confirmed that he saw blood and water coming from Jesus' pierced heart, which hows that Jesus' lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Ask a medical expert if you are unsure of this, I did.

 

How would a man in Jesus' state overcome trained Roman guards? Or even unarmed, peasant disciples. Fishermen and other peasants do not usually win in a fight against trained Roman soldiers.

 

The Jews spead the rumor that the guards fell asleep. This would not happen. A guard caught asleep at the post was killed without question. Even if they did fall asleep, wouldn't the crowd and noise necessary to move a boulder waken them?

 

Finally, if Jesus never really died, and did escape the tomb, where did he go? There is absolutely no data, historical, imagined, myth, none at all which even suggest Jesus lived pas the crucifixion.

 

As I said at the beginning of this post, I know I cannot prove empirically that God exists, but there are many events in the Bible and of the Christian faith which can be proven, using only historical data. I am a currently a college student, and refuse to arbitrarily accept something. As you can see, I have researched this topic, and the facts point to the Christian view of the resurrection as the only practical option. I know this does not directly answer the question of the original post, but it does show the validity of an event central to the Christian faith.

[Ouroboros]

I stumbled upon this site, and these message boards, and felt I should address the original question as to evidence of the Christian God. First, your conditions must be addressed. I accept that most people on these boards are hesitant about the contents of the Bible (miracles, healings, etc), so I will not mention those such things. I will operate under two assumptions, both of which are hard data.

Make up your mind. Are you working under hard data or assumptions? Don't they contradict each other? Hard data leads to undisputable facts, and don't need assumptions.

 

1. the New Testament as a historical document

2. the existance (but not necessarily the truth) of the Christian religion as we find it today.

You mean the stories in the New Testament as historical writings? That's is disputed even among scholars.

 

For those questioning the validity of the Bible as a historical document, there is countless literature on the subject, and in reality the fact is not disputed in even the most un-Christian of academic circles.

No it's not. Rather the opposite. There are disputes in the academic circles of the validity and historicity of the Gospels.

 

If you do have any questions or doubt on the historical validity of the events in the New Testament, I will be more than happy to elaborate on the subject.

We have many topics on that subject on this site. We don't have to make this one yet another one, pick one of the old ones.

 

There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual and subjective. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the disciples without Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the two disciples at Emmaus, the fisherman on the shore, James, and even 500 people at once (which consequently Paul says most of which are still alive, challenging the reader to check the truth of the story by questioning eyewitnesses)

Witnesses that didn't write their own stories. The witnesses stories were written down by second and third hand rumors.

 

I leave the rest of your post to be refuted by all of our knowledgeable members, 'cause I'm going to bed.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

For those questioning the validity of the Bible as a historical document, there is countless literature on the subject, and in reality the fact is not disputed in even the most un-Christian of academic circles. If you do have any questions or doubt on the historical validity of the events in the New Testament, I will be more than happy to elaborate on the subject.

 

 

 

If you don't have dispute regarding the NT, then why do you have different canons?

 

Different Biblical Canons of the World

Books of The Different Bible

Who Decided What Went In The Bible

Textual Intergrity of The Bible

Biblical Canon of The World

 

 

The Greek Orthodox Church did not finalize its canon until the tenth century (primarily in doubt was inclusion of the book of Revelation). The Syrian Church had an even more complicated debate, and today recognizes only 22 books in its New Testament (excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The Copts and Ethiopians have a few additional books included in their New Testament.

 

When Martin Luther reviewed Scripture during his break from Catholicism, he judged the contents of the Bible in the light of his convictions. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel--specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation. As the Cambridge History of the Bible puts it, "The test was whether a book proclaimed Christ. 'That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic, though it be the work of Peter or Paul; and conversely, that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod.'"

 

Please don't lie about the fact that is no dipute in the validity of the biblical canon. The canon is not still disputed till date. First you christian figure out amongst yourself which is "correct" word of god. Then you come to us.

 

The style of that work is drastically different, and overblown, showing a style nothing like the four gospels of the New Testament.

 

And who decides that the 4 gospel are correct?Let me guess. Men

 

The logic for including only four Gospels(out of many) into the official "Bible" or church canon is often attributed to St. Irenaeus of Lyons(late second century), who was supposed to have deemed four the appropriate number because there were four corners of the earth and four divine winds.

It was clerical men who defined which stories were inspired by God, and there is nothing whatsoever that proves they were inspired by God when they selected or voted.

 

There were too many witnesses.

Can you show me one testimony of an eyewitness who saw this.

 

Hallucinations are private, individual and subjective.

 

Ever heard of mass hallucinations. In 1995, in India, million of hindus "saw" that that the Ganesha drank milk from them. I guess that makes it true. or wait. Aliens have landed in Roswell, there are so many "eyewitnesses".

 

Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the disciples without Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the two disciples at Emmaus, the fisherman on the shore, James, and even 500 people at once

 

Name one person from the 500 hundred people

Christian

Thus, the point is that unless there is substantial eyewitness account to the resurrection event, Christians making such claims about Jesus would be absurd.

 

Commentary:

In other words, Christianity wouldn't make the claim Jesus rose from the dead unless it was factual. And in other words, Christians wouldn't make absurd claims so there must have been many eyewitnesses. This is an example of circular logic.

 

The real absurdity is that you attempt to claim as factual that which Paul is writing from his second hand information years after the event was supposed to have taken place. There is little way the people at Corinth would have been able to prove his assertions right or wrong 20+ years after the event was supposed to have happened.

 

Paul even admitted he operated from expediency. He changed himself into whatever form helped him sell a story to potential converts, and in selling his story, Paul expected to receive a big prize for all his efforts.

 

As Paul writes:

1 Cor 9:20-27

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

 

Another example of Paul expecting a reward:

2 Tim 4:8

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

 

Clearly, Paul had no problem assuming any form which would help gain converts to his cause, and gaining converts meant Paul would receive a prize.

 

Christian:

If what Paul's writing was lying it would have been common knowledge and Christianity would have never gotten off the ground.

Commentary:

This rationalization falls flat on it's face before it even gets off the ground. If your logic is valid, you shouldn't have any trouble accepting the Book of Mormon as the word of God.

 

The Book of Mormon published in 1830, was written based on gold plates that were given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni during a private revelation. The gold plates were then taken back by the Angel.

 

Eleven witnesses were said to have testified that they saw the plates. A private revelation where information is given to a human is exactly what Paul claimed to have had with Jesus.

Joseph Smith received his information from a divine being and if what he wrote was a lie, it would have been common knowledge and Mormonism would never have gotten off the ground.

.....

It should also be noted that according to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, one of the most amazing events in world history occurred the moment Jesus died.

 

Matt 27:52-53

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Paul makes no mention of this huge event ever taking place. Paul frequented Jerusalem, went around to many places preaching about Jesus and he never says one word about it.

If dead people were raised to life, milled about for three days and then strolled into Jerusalem and appeared to many people, this was at least as big an event as over 500 people supposedly seeing a resurrected Jesus at one time.

This particular event can only be found in the Gospel of Matthew despite it's monumental significance. Nor is there any mention of it anywhere in written accounts of that time period.

If Paul had heard of this event (and how could he not have heard), you can be sure he would have preached it.

 

(which consequently Paul says most of which are still alive, challenging the reader to check the truth of the story by questioning eyewitnesses)

 

Jesus Is Risen And Over 500 People Saw Him!

 

There was no possible motive for such a lie. Lies are told to gain something, the only thing the disciples gained from this 'lie' was hatred, scorn, persecution, imprisonment, torture, exile, they were boiled alive, roasted, beheaded, disemboweled and fed to lions.

 

Where is your historical proof for the above?Is it in the bible?

 

Stop using rhetorical arguements

 

Q11. All the apostles died for their beliefs. Why would anyone risk his life for a belief they know to be a lie?There are three assumptions embedded in this question: all of them demonstrably false.

 

The first assumption is that we know all the apostles died martyrs' deaths. This is simply not the case. With the exception of the death of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2) and Judas (Matthew 27:9, Acts 1:18), no other apostolic deaths is recounted in the New Testament. The traditional material relating to the life of the apostles are simply unreliable. Apart from the (probably) historical tradition that Peter died in Rome, we do not know how the rest of the apostles met their end -whether it was through martyrdom, disease, accident or old age.

 

The second assumption is that what the apostles believed about Jesus is the same essentially as what can be found in the New Testament. It must be remembered that since the stories in the gospels were not written by the apostles or any of their close associates [see Q9 above] - it is unlikely that what is described therein as the teachings of Jesus actually were what the Jewish preacher taught

 

....

Thus even if it can be shown that some of the apostles died martyrs' deaths, it is unlikely in the extreme that they died for the same beliefs or dogmas of modern fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity.

 

The third assumption is that people will not die for false beliefs or beliefs they know to be false. This is clearly a false assumption. All religions have their martyrs. Even some non-religious political systems - such as communism - have found people willing too die for them.

 

......

 

In other words being willing to die for one's beliefs has always been the hallmark of fanatics and true believers. The willingness of these believers to die martyr's deaths provides no assurance whatsoever that what they believe is true.

 

Replies to Common Fundamentalist Apologetics

 

The Quran is much historical document than the bible. I suppose that makes Islam true.

[crazy-tiger]

I will operate under two assumptions, both of which are hard data.

 

1. the New Testament as a historical document

2. the existance (but not necessarily the truth) of the Christian religion as we find it today.

 

For those questioning the validity of the Bible as a historical document, there is countless literature on the subject, and in reality the fact is not disputed in even the most un-Christian of academic circles. If you do have any questions or doubt on the historical validity of the events in the New Testament, I will be more than happy to elaborate on the subject.

Ok... you provide us with historical verification of the events in the NT, and we'll look at it.

 

Just make sure you don't give us stuff that's already been classed as questionable at best, and outright forgery at worst.

When considering the resurrection of the man named Jesus, there are five possible theories.

 

1. Christianity - Jesus rose, Christians got it right

2. Hallucination - a non-deliberate lie

3. Myth - the resurrection is, in actuality, only symbolically true

4. Conspiracy theory - a deliberate lie

5. Swoon - didn't actually happen - Jesus never really died

6. None of it happened... (I have to put that, since you don't actually consider that possibility.

In the following, I will go through theories 2-5 and the flaws in them which prove them to be impossible and improbable. Again, I will do so based just on the two previously stated assumptions.

 

Theory #2 - Hallucination

 

Personally, if I saw a dead man walking and talking, I would immediately think I was hallucinating, however with relation to Jesus, this was not the case.

 

There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual and subjective. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the disciples without Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, the two disciples at Emmaus, the fisherman on the shore, James, and even 500 people at once (which consequently Paul says most of which are still alive, challenging the reader to check the truth of the story by questioning eyewitnesses)

 

Hallucinations usually last a few seconds, maybe minutes, and rarely hours. This 'hallucination' went on for 40 days.

 

Hallucinations happen once, to individual people. If as few as three people have the same hallucination, psychologically, it is not a hallucination.

 

The people in the stories spoke with Jesus. Unless one has a mental disorder, figments of imagination do not hold profound conversations.

 

If it were a hallucination, the Jews would have produced the body and stopped the rumor of the resurrection.

They would have produced the body if there had indeed been a Jesus...

Theory #3 - Myth

 

The myth theory contains two layers, a non-divine Jesus who did not rise, and a divine Jesus who did in fact rise. According to the myth theory, the actual events were the first layer, and over time, there was a transference to the second layer. There is absolutely no historical evidence that the first layer even existed, much less that the story evolved.

 

The literary style of the resurrection stories are not written as myths. Any literary scholar who knows myths can confirm this. Myths contain overblown, exaggerated events. There is nothing arbitrary in the resurrection story. Everything fits in, and everything is meaningful. Compare the writings of the four gospels to the literary style in the 'Gospel of Peter', a forgery dated roughly at 125 A.D. The style of that work is drastically different, and overblown, showing a style nothing like the four gospels of the New Testament.

 

There was not enough time for a myth to develop. Myths take generations to develop, the myth of the resurrection had to develop within 30 years of Jesus’ death. Note, I realize that the dates of the original copies of the gospels is still disputed, so the above timeline is based upon Paul's letters. A scholar named Julius Muller from the 19th century challenged his contemporaries to give any example of a great myth/legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within 30 years of that figure's death. To date, no one has been able to answer this challenge.

 

The most important point of the myth theory is often overlooked today. The empty tomb was discovered by women. At that time period, women were not believed, and were not trustworthy as eyewitnesses. If a myth were to develop, men would have discovered the tomb, not women.

Myths can develop and evolve withing months... Take the myths surrounding 9/11, or Elvis, or Kennedy, or Monroe.

The whole "there wasn't enough time" argument has been proven false.

 

Oh, and anything can happen in a myth... so it being women discovering the tomb makes no difference.

Theory #4 - Conspiracy Theory

 

While Jesus was with the disciples, he sustained them, but after he died, and if he did not appear, who made them act?

 

The main point in this arguement is the historical fact that no one, saint, sinner, weak, strong, Christian, heretic, no one, ever confessed, freely, under pressure, bribe, even torture that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake, a lie or a deliberate deception. Even when they did break, they denied that Jesus was the Christ, worshiped Caesar, but never once did anyone claim the resurrection was a conspiracy.

 

There was no possible motive for such a lie. Lies are told to gain something, the only thing the disciples gained from this 'lie' was hatred, scorn, persecution, imprisonment, torture, exile, they were boiled alive, roasted, beheaded, disemboweled and fed to lions.

 

If the resurrection were a lie, there is a good chance the Jews would have eventually produced a corpse, yet one was never produced.

Again you assume that any of it is true...

If there never was a Jesus, then no body could ever be produced.

 

Oh, and by all accounts, the story of the disciples suffering from "hatred, scorn, persecution, imprisonment, torture, exile, they were boiled alive, roasted, beheaded, disemboweled and fed to lions" is just that... a story.

There is no evidence at all that any of that happened to them. (point of interest... the whole feeding to lions bit is impossible... since the first records of such date to 2nd century. Unless the disciples lived to over 150 years old, that cannot have happened to them)

Theory #5 - Swoon

 

Jesus could not have survived the crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful, the Roman law even put the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape.

 

The Roman sodlier did not even break Jesus' legs, as was done to any crucified criminal to hasten the death.

 

John, an eyewitness confirmed that he saw blood and water coming from Jesus' pierced heart, which hows that Jesus' lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Ask a medical expert if you are unsure of this, I did.

 

How would a man in Jesus' state overcome trained Roman guards? Or even unarmed, peasant disciples. Fishermen and other peasants do not usually win in a fight against trained Roman soldiers.

 

The Jews spead the rumor that the guards fell asleep. This would not happen. A guard caught asleep at the post was killed without question. Even if they did fall asleep, wouldn't the crowd and noise necessary to move a boulder waken them?

 

Finally, if Jesus never really died, and did escape the tomb, where did he go? There is absolutely no data, historical, imagined, myth, none at all which even suggest Jesus lived pas the crucifixion.

Theory #6 - none of it happened at all...

 

There was no Jesus, there was no crucifixion, no tomb, no resurrection, it's all a myth.

 

 

This explains the lack of a body, the lack of evidence of Jesus, the events, the resurrection, the conflicting accounts... (oh yes, you'd do well to explain the contradictions away... start with who discovered the tomb, whether it was open or not, what they found inside, and what happened afterwards... It's amazing how much like an urban myth it is)

As I said at the beginning of this post, I know I cannot prove empirically that God exists, but there are many events in the Bible and of the Christian faith which can be proven, using only historical data. I am a currently a college student, and refuse to arbitrarily accept something. As you can see, I have researched this topic, and the facts point to the Christian view of the resurrection as the only practical option. I know this does not directly answer the question of the original post, but it does show the validity of an event central to the Christian faith.

No... it dosn't.

 

I can see that you've researched it, and only accepted facts and possibilities that confirm your pre-held conclusion. Should you have approached it with an open mind, you would have considered the possibility that none of it happened at all. (you didn't... which shows you didn't want to find out the facts, just wanted something that would confirm your arbitrarily held belief)

 

The facts in no way point to the Christian view being the only practical option... instead, they point towards the whole thing being nothing more than a fable.

 

 

 

By the way... I note with interest how you assumed the NT to be true, in direct contradiction to the original question, then set about proving the truth of an event that is only referenced in the NT.

 

Did you intend to present us with circular logic, or was it accidental?

[Guest hnsq]

How, exactly does one prove the validity of a historical document? The number of documents found is checked against the discrepancies amongst those documents. Take classical literature, literature which is not disputed, such as Aristotle. Aristotle’s works were written between 384-322 B.C., and the earliest copy we have dates to 1100 A.D. We have no more than 49 copies of any one work. Plato's works were written between 427 and 347 B.C, and the earliest copy we have is dated to 900 A.D. We have 7 copies, total. Lets look at (excluding the Bible) the most historically valid ancient text we have access to today. Homer's The Iliad. It was written around 900 B.C. and the earliest copy was found dating 500 years later. There are 643 copies. Of those copies, 764 lines are in dispute, which equals a 5% textual corruption. Now lets look at the numbers of the New Testament, as that is the text I used in my previous post. It was written between 40 and 100 A.D., and the earliest copy we have dates to 125 A.D. There are over 24,000 separate copies of the New Testament. Amongst those copies, only 40 lines (400 words) are disputed, which equals one-half of 1% textual corruption.

 

When I work under the assumption that the New Testament is historically valid, I do not do so lightly. This is how one proves the validity of historical documents, and not only has the New Testament held up under those tests, but has exceeded the qualifications other 'undisputed' historical documents meet.

 

No... it dosn't.

 

I can see that you've researched it, and only accepted facts and possibilities that confirm your pre-held conclusion. Should you have approached it with an open mind, you would have considered the possibility that none of it happened at all. (you didn't... which shows you didn't want to find out the facts, just wanted something that would confirm your arbitrarily held belief)

 

The facts in no way point to the Christian view being the only practical option... instead, they point towards the whole thing being nothing more than a fable.

 

 

 

By the way... I note with interest how you assumed the NT to be true, in direct contradiction to the original question, then set about proving the truth of an event that is only referenced in the NT.

 

Did you intend to present us with circular logic, or was it accidental?

 

Crazy-tiger, please do not assume I only accept facts which confirm any pre-held conclusions. I do look at the facts of everything, and my faith is only valid if it can stand under any test. Also, as you can see above, the New Testament is the most historically valid ancient document we have to date. As such, it did not make sense to me to debate a point disregarding texts which are in fact historically valid.

 

I know there are a lot of posts I did not address, and I will get to them, I just don't have the time right now, I do not want to ignore anyone, and if I do, it is not intentional. I will get to everyone's posts, but I will not write anything based on personal opinion, so it might take me a few days to gather the facts needed to post a reply. I will operate in this discussion looking at the Bible only as a piece of literature, with no faith-based assumptions, if you would have the courtesy to debate without presuppositions as well.

[white_raven23]

Take classical literature, literature which is not disputed, such as Aristotle. Aristotle’s works were written between 384-322 B.C., and the earliest copy we have dates to 1100 A.D. We have no more than 49 copies of any one work. Plato's works were written between 427 and 347 B.C, and the earliest copy we have is dated to 900 A.D. We have 7 copies, total.

 

Philosophers. Not religion-pushers. Not even historians. I don't recall a single line of Aristotle pressing for everyone to worship Zeus.

 

 

Lets look at (excluding the Bible) the most historically valid ancient text we have access to today. Homer's The Iliad. It was written around 900 B.C. and the earliest copy was found dating 500 years later. There are 643 copies. Of those copies, 764 lines are in dispute, which equals a 5% textual corruption.

 

No one claims the Iliad is real. It is a fictional work. Christians however, claim the bible depicts factual events. Which has been proven false time and again.

Now lets look at the numbers of the New Testament, as that is the text I used in my previous post. It was written between 40 and 100 A.D., and the earliest copy we have dates to 125 A.D. There are over 24,000 separate copies of the New Testament. Amongst those copies, only 40 lines (400 words) are disputed, which equals one-half of 1% textual corruption.

 

Soooo. What your saying is that because more copies of the NT survived history, THAT makes it true. Nevermind all the different histories, and pagan literature that was lost because the dominant religion of the dark ages DESTROYED it all.

[Ouroboros]

How, exactly does one prove the validity of a historical document? The number of documents found is checked against the discrepancies amongst those documents. Take classical literature, literature which is not disputed, such as Aristotle. Aristotle’s works were written between 384-322 B.C., and the earliest copy we have dates to 1100 A.D. We have no more than 49 copies of any one work. Plato's works were written between 427 and 347 B.C, and the earliest copy we have is dated to 900 A.D. We have 7 copies, total. Lets look at (excluding the Bible) the most historically valid ancient text we have access to today. Homer's The Iliad. It was written around 900 B.C. and the earliest copy was found dating 500 years later. There are 643 copies. Of those copies, 764 lines are in dispute, which equals a 5% textual corruption. Now lets look at the numbers of the New Testament, as that is the text I used in my previous post. It was written between 40 and 100 A.D., and the earliest copy we have dates to 125 A.D. There are over 24,000 separate copies of the New Testament. Amongst those copies, only 40 lines (400 words) are disputed, which equals one-half of 1% textual corruption.

There's a big difference between writing philosophical literature that can be taken at face value for what it is, compared to writings that claims miracle working supreme beings.

 

The Iliad and the Odyssey have fabulous stories in it, and no one doubts that the story was written, but everyone doubts them to be factual historical writings or that there are one-eyed monsters. The same criticism is valid to use against the Bible. No one doubts that Christianity began in the 1st century, but many doubt that Jesus was son of God (2/3 of this planet to be more accurate)

 

Neither the Iliad and the Odyssey are historical writings, they are only stories. Besides they say the Iliad is traditionally ascribed to Homer, but no one can be 100% sure. If you start debating that Homer didn't write them, many would say "okay, fine with us", no one will try to refute you, just because they also know it could be questioned and doubted. So why don't you apply that to the Bible? Somehow you want the bible to be approved prima facie, without the same criticism that goes into other works.

 

And take Aristotle that you mention, if someone started to argue that he didn't exist and that he didn't write the documents ascribed to him, it wouldn't change anyones faith or life. We and everyone else would not have our lifes changed, so we wouldn't fight for our lives to keep the belief that Aristotle wrote those documents. Bring up some arguments why he didn't write the things we think that he wrote, and I won't argue against you. But you argue against the doubts that John, Mark, Luke and Mathew wrote the Gospels. And many scholars know that the Gospels were written long after the supposed events, and many scholars agree that the facts in the stories are incorrect.

[NotBlinded]

Theory #3 - Myth

 

...Myths contain overblown, exaggerated events...

You really didn't just say that did you...and believe that what you are telling us isn't just that? Oh well, I'll finish reading your post now...

 

 

There was not enough time for a myth to develop. Myths take generations to develop, the myth of the resurrection had to develop within 30 years of Jesus’ death. Note, I realize that the dates of the original copies of the gospels is still disputed, so the above timeline is based upon Paul's letters. A scholar named Julius Muller from the 19th century challenged his contemporaries to give any example of a great myth/legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within 30 years of that figure's death. To date, no one has been able to answer this challenge.

I might buy that if it was a new and unique idea. This myth is just a continuation of many other, already existing, myths. Maybe it was Jehoshua Ben-Pandira that this myth takes from also. He was born around 120 BC. So there is plenty of time to put together a myth based on other myths, or Chrisitianity is a continuation of this myth:

 

"According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda, and afterwards crucified by being hanged on a tree, on the eve of the Passover. This is the manner of death assigned to Jesus in the Book of Acts. The Gemara says there exists a tradition that on the rest-day before the Sabbath they crucified Jehoshua, on the rest-day of the Passah (the day before the Passover). The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C."

 

From here.

[crazy-tiger]

Crazy-tiger, please do not assume I only accept facts which confirm any pre-held conclusions. I do look at the facts of everything, and my faith is only valid if it can stand under any test. Also, as you can see above, the New Testament is the most historically valid ancient document we have to date. As such, it did not make sense to me to debate a point disregarding texts which are in fact historically valid.

The NT has been confirmed as containing fake works... that was confirmed 1600 years ago.

The NT makes claims about places and people that very badly mis-match what is known.

The NT makes conflicting claims on the same events.

The NT makes conflicting claims about people.

The NT makes conflicting claims about the resurrection... which you are trying to prove happened.

The NT was written by people using second, third and even fourth hand accounts. There are no eyewitness accounts in the NT.

The NT makes claims about events, people and places that are recorded nowhere else.

The Gospels, the basis of the resurrection claim, were not mentioned by anyone until circa 150CE.

The Gospels are of anonymous authorship.

The Gospels show clear evidence of an evolving story... the claims and events getting more fantastic in each successive Gospel.

 

How, exactly does one prove the validity of a historical document? The number of documents found is checked against the discrepancies amongst those documents.

Unfortunately not...

 

That's how you prove the textual validity of a document. To prove historical validity, you must check it against history... you haven't done that.

Take classical literature, literature which is not disputed, such as Aristotle. Aristotle’s works were written between 384-322 B.C., and the earliest copy we have dates to 1100 A.D. We have no more than 49 copies of any one work. Plato's works were written between 427 and 347 B.C, and the earliest copy we have is dated to 900 A.D. We have 7 copies, total. Lets look at (excluding the Bible) the most historically valid ancient text we have access to today. Homer's The Iliad. It was written around 900 B.C. and the earliest copy was found dating 500 years later. There are 643 copies. Of those copies, 764 lines are in dispute, which equals a 5% textual corruption. Now lets look at the numbers of the New Testament, as that is the text I used in my previous post. It was written between 40 and 100 A.D., and the earliest copy we have dates to 125 A.D. There are over 24,000 separate copies of the New Testament. Amongst those copies, only 40 lines (400 words) are disputed, which equals one-half of 1% textual corruption.

So, you've shown that it's textually valid...

 

Gone with the Wind has ZERO disputed words... does that mean it's historically valid? According to your "proof", yes!

When I work under the assumption that the New Testament is historically valid, I do not do so lightly. This is how one proves the validity of historical documents, and not only has the New Testament held up under those tests, but has exceeded the qualifications other 'undisputed' historical documents meet.

Your "proof" of historical validity is no such thing... and I've demonstrated just how flawed it is.

 

 

The question is, are you going to accept this, or try to insist that there is no flaw?

[crazy-tiger]

How, exactly does one prove the validity of a historical document? The number of documents found is checked against the discrepancies amongst those documents. Take classical literature, literature which is not disputed, such as Aristotle. Aristotle’s works were written between 384-322 B.C., and the earliest copy we have dates to 1100 A.D. We have no more than 49 copies of any one work. Plato's works were written between 427 and 347 B.C, and the earliest copy we have is dated to 900 A.D. We have 7 copies, total. Lets look at (excluding the Bible) the most historically valid ancient text we have access to today. Homer's The Iliad. It was written around 900 B.C. and the earliest copy was found dating 500 years later. There are 643 copies. Of those copies, 764 lines are in dispute, which equals a 5% textual corruption. Now lets look at the numbers of the New Testament, as that is the text I used in my previous post. It was written between 40 and 100 A.D., and the earliest copy we have dates to 125 A.D. There are over 24,000 separate copies of the New Testament. Amongst those copies, only 40 lines (400 words) are disputed, which equals one-half of 1% textual corruption.

This, by the way, is classed as proof of Accuracy of Copying.

 

As an example of how it fails to prove historical validity, there are millions of copies of the Financial Times distributed across the UK daily. Amongst those copies, there are no disputed lines, which equals 0% textual corruption.

 

Does that in any way prove the historical validity of what is said by the FT?

 

 

 

I await your answer with curiosity...

[thunderbolt]

There are over 24,000 separate copies of the New Testament. Amongst those copies, only 40 lines (400 words) are disputed, which equals one-half of 1% textual corruption.

This is false, and I don't know which apologist came up with this, but:

 

According to Ehrman, a NT scholar, there are 5700+ copies and fragments of the NT available today. The total numbers of variations between these copies are in the order of 300,000 to 400,000. In other words, there are more variations among the manuscripts available, than there are words in the New Testament.

 

Ehrman, Bart, Misquoting Jesus 89-90

[TruthWarrior]

There was not enough time for a myth to develop. Myths take generations to develop, the myth of the resurrection had to develop within 30 years of Jesus’ death. Note, I realize that the dates of the original copies of the gospels is still disputed, so the above timeline is based upon Paul's letters. A scholar named Julius Muller from the 19th century challenged his contemporaries to give any example of a great myth/legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within 30 years of that figure's death. To date, no one has been able to answer this challenge.

 

A myth develops from the time it is thought up and written to the time it is read to people and believed. Takes how long? Maybe a few days, then a few years to spread to so many gullible masses? When it takes over governments and starts burning competing books and people, it will, like any monoploy, can last quite a while.

 

There were plenty of people back then claiming to be god, or have seen god-men, and plenty of people dumb enough to believe them. Even today, there's new religions popping up with new gods, philosophies, beliefs, and saviors, all within 30 years (scientology, Urantia, etc). Many develop from swiping good or popular ideas and characters from prior religions. Judaism swiped pagan ideas. Christianity was made out of pagan and jewish stories. Islam stole their theology from pagan, jewish, and christians. Now every new age group today takes their theories from any mix of those plus buddhism and other oriental religions. In every age there is people hungry enough to immediatly believe it all if it merely sounds good or true enough.

 

See also, The Remarkable Exploits of David Hogan and j just some of many "false prophets and healers" (con-artists) within christianity. In 30 years they can get tons of followers, and sell lots of books.

[thunderbolt]

A myth develops from the time it is thought up and written to the time it is read to people and believed. Takes how long? Maybe a few days, then a few years to spread to so many gullible masses? When it takes over governments and starts burning competing books and people, it will, like any monoploy, can last quite a while.

You are so right! Point in case: Days after 9/11 the myths started circulating (in the Arab world) that it was just a big Hollywood production. They had photo's to "prove" their case. Same with Apollo moon landing.

[white_raven23]

A myth develops from the time it is thought up and written to the time it is read to people and believed. Takes how long? Maybe a few days, then a few years to spread to so many gullible masses? When it takes over governments and starts burning competing books and people, it will, like any monoploy, can last quite a while.

You are so right! Point in case: Days after 9/11 the myths started circulating (in the Arab world) that it was just a big Hollywood production. They had photo's to "prove" their case. Same with Apollo moon landing.

 

And Elvis is alive.

 

And Nostradamus predicted events of 9-11.

[Eponymic]

A myth develops from the time it is thought up and written to the time it is read to people and believed. Takes how long? Maybe a few days, then a few years to spread to so many gullible masses? When it takes over governments and starts burning competing books and people, it will, like any monoploy, can last quite a while.

You are so right! Point in case: Days after 9/11 the myths started circulating (in the Arab world) that it was just a big Hollywood production. They had photo's to "prove" their case. Same with Apollo moon landing.

 

Very true. We're already dealing with the active myth that Iraq was in any way connected with 9/11. And the active myth that are government is actually trying to catch the person responsible.

[SkepticOfBible]

How, exactly does one prove the validity of a historical document? The number of documents found is checked against the discrepancies amongst those documents. Take classical literature, literature which is not disputed, such as Aristotle.

 

Yes they still are. No one assumes that everything that they are true

 

Aristotle’s works were written between 384-322 B.C., and the earliest copy we have dates to 1100 A.D. We have no more than 49 copies of any one work. Plato's works were written between 427 and 347 B.C, and the earliest copy we have is dated to 900 A.D. We have 7 copies, total. Lets look at (excluding the Bible) the most historically valid ancient text we have access to today. Homer's The Iliad. It was written around 900 B.C. and the earliest copy was found dating 500 years later. There are 643 copies. Of those copies, 764 lines are in dispute, which equals a 5% textual corruption.

 

So pretty much you are riducing the bible to status to these mythological books. Afterall no one believes everything that these writers, I guess the same goes for bible

 

Can you name me one non-christian scholar who says that bible is historically accurate?

 

Now lets look at the numbers of the New Testament, as that is the text I used in my previous post. It was written between 40 and 100 A.D., and the earliest copy we have dates to 125 A.D. There are over 24,000 separate copies of the New Testament. Amongst those copies, only 40 lines (400 words) are disputed, which equals one-half of 1% textual corruption.

 

Manuscript Fallacies

 

Further, calling the New Testament a book and then comparing with Homer's Iliad which, in every sense of the word, is a single book by a single author [c] , is, to say the least, disingenuous.

........

 

Why not compare the New Testament with the manuscripts of the other "great" [in the sense of having many followers] monotheistic religion, Islam? The library of Astan-i Quds-i Razavi in Mashhad, Iran alone houses eleven thousand manuscripts of the Quran in Arabic. This is already double the extant New Testament manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts date from the ninth century CE, or only three centuries after the death of Muhammad

 

........

Obviously a better way at looking at this is to look at the verses in the New Testament and see how many of these verses have variants. Thus even if there are one hundred variant manuscripts on a particular verse, we will simply count this as a single variant verse. Given this assumption, how many verses in the New Testament have variants? The table below, adapted from Aland's The Text of the New Testament, shows the full story: [g] [17]

 

TABLE

 

It can be seen above that the most corrupted works (in terms of variant verses) in the New Testament are the Book of Revelation and the Gospels. Virtually half of the verses in these works have variants. Even the least corrupted corpus, the Pauline epistles, has almost 25% variant verses. In total more than a third of the verses in the New Testament have variants.

 

This is how one proves the validity of historical documents, and not only has the New Testament held up under those tests, but has exceeded the qualifications other 'undisputed' historical documents meet.

 

The logic behind this question is badly flawed. At most, a high preponderance of manuscripts guarantee the textual integrity of the document but it does not provide any weightage whatsoever for the factual veracity of its contents.

 

 

One of the favourite verses which are disputed are Mark 16:9-20

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...r=16&version=31

 

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

 

If they don't exist then what are they doing in the Word of God aka The Truth.

 

 

Almost all the bibles have this verse, that show that the editors of these bible have a theological bias.

 

I will operate in this discussion looking at the Bible only as a piece of literature,

Actually we all treat it like that, so there is no dispute about that.

 

Just like we don't think Shakespheare and Plato don't contain absolute truth or are historical true, we treat the same with the bible. Unless you want to have special pleading for the bible