The world works

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I meant to put a synopsis but I accidentally hit enter so...... I guess I will start the synopsis in the next post lol

Well first the world works was just me typing random words and that would be when I hit enter messing up the entire idea for this thread. However, I will now attempt to rescue it.

This gentleman gives a lot of the specific evidence of why the Gospels are reliable, but he also makes an argument from the position that they are unreliable.

He calls this his minimalist facts argument:


1.)Jesus died by Crucifixion
2.)Jesus was Buried in a well known tomb
3.)Jesus's death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope, because they thought his life was ended
4.)The tomb in which He was buried was discovered empty a few days later.
5.)The disciples had experiences in which they believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
6.)The disciples were transformed from doubters who were scared to identify themselves with Christ to outspoken proclaimers of his death and resurrection.
7.)This message was the center of preaching in the early Church.
8.)This message was especially claimed in Jerusalem where Christ died and was buried shortly before.
9.)The church was born and grew.
10.)Sunday was the primary day of Worship
11.)James(half brother of Jesus), who had been a skeptic, was converted because he also believed he saw the resurrected Jesus.
12.) A few years later Saul of tarsus is converted by an experience he believed to be an appearance of the resurrected Jesus.

His argument is that you can draw from these 12 pieces of historical evidence that Christ was most likely risen from the dead. He does not start with the Presupposition that God is real and he does not ask that one start with the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God. All in all its a great video.

The minimal presupposition that you did not mention is that we need to take the Bible as a historical document without any errors or misinterpretations. Unlike all other historical documents, which do reflect the ideology of their authors.

a reply to: Pirvonen

Actually no you can believe that and still agree on the 12 facts I presented, and those 12 facts are basically agreed upon by all Scholars. Antony Flew and this gentleman had a conversation you can find on youtube, and flew concedes that all of these are known historical facts about the 1st century. So I mean you can assume it has errors, and you should still be able to agree on these 12 facts.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

there is no actual evidence for your alledged 12 facts

originally posted by: Pirvonen
The minimal presupposition that you did not mention is that we need to take the Bible as a historical document without any errors or misinterpretations. Unlike all other historical documents, which do reflect the ideology of their authors.

And this is not to mention that it all might be not be just a historical document, but a FICTIONAL propaganda document.

And

He does not start with the Presupposition that God is real and he does not ask that one start with the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God.

This man must be fictional also. When I do not start with that presuppostion, that the bible is the word of God, NONE of those "minimal FACTS" holds any water.

I correct myself, these are true

7.)This message was the center of preaching in the early Church.
8.)This message was especially claimed in Jerusalem where Christ died and was buried shortly before.
9.)The church was born and grew.
10.)Sunday was the primary day of Worship

Other than those, all his "facts" are faith based.

And as for the title of the piece? Changed a generation of scholars?????? What scholars? What generation? All of them? Wasn't this piece presented in the last few years? Not enough time to change a generation, in my view.

The problem is: These "facts" are only found in the collection of works we call the bible, and sundry writings from early church "fathers". If supposition is the standard by which we determine facts, then Homer's Sirens and Cyclops must have been real. And Atlantis was no doubt real, since we have Plato's testimony to that effect.

It is a fact we must accept, faith is faith. It's called faith for a reason.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

When was paul's conversion?
When was Paul in Corinth and how do we know?
When did Paul meet Peter and James and how do we know?
How are you going to deny numbers 6-10?
Actually on what grounds do you reject any of that as known historical facts?

On what grounds do you reject the Gospels as historical evidence? They are based in the literary style known as Historical narrative and historical fiction was not yet invented as a literary style. Egyptian mythologies, Greek mythologies, Homer's illiad is written in the form of epic poetry. My point is pretty much anything you point out will not parallel the Gospels in literary style.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And this is not to mention that it all might be not be just a historical document, but a FICTIONAL propaganda document.

Evidence for this random speculation?

This man must be fictional also. When I do not start with that presuppostion, that the bible is the word of God, NONE of those "minimal FACTS" holds any water.

What about the Bible being the word of God or not God makes any of those claims less true?



"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

This is from Josephus. The parts in brackets are what scholars consider Christian additions. The point of me posting this is to show you Jesus was most likely crucified by pontius pilate which is consistent with the Gospels as well.

Tacitus
"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also."

Again another perspective that agrees Christ was put to death by Pilate. So again most likely Jesus was a real person put to death by pontius pilate lets say around 30 AD. These extra biblical sources also give more credibility to Bible.

"I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they were or ever had been Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger..."

This is from Pliny the younger. You will notice he said they would sing to Christ as if he were a God. This is an unlikely choice of words if Christ wasn't a real person. It also shows the Christians were willing to die for their belief at a time in which they would have known if Christ were a real person or not. Again highly unlikely they were willing to die for someone they could have verified as a fabricated human being.

If the Gospels were fabricated, why would they place the burial of Christ in a well known tomb were anyone in Jerusalem could have went and discredited their story?

Now on what grounds do you deny the points I haven't touched on?

a reply to: Klassified

Epic poetry and historical narrative are not the same type of writings. Plato's account of atlantis is in a Socratic dialogue not a historical treatise. The story is preceded by a story about the sun god's son Phaethon yoking horses to his father's chariot and then driving them through the sky and scorching the earth. Which shows us it is fact mingled with fiction...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Klassified

Epic poetry and historical narrative are not the same type of writings. Plato's account of atlantis is in a Socratic dialogue not a historical treatise. The story is preceded by a story about the sun god's son Phaethon yoking horses to his father's chariot and then driving them through the sky and scorching the earth. Which shows us it is fact mingled with fiction...

The biblical narrative has Jesus walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, calming the storm, turning water to wine, and "transfiguring" on the mount, along with a dead man, and a man who disappeared(died, never existed) a very long time before. Add to that, he allegedly ascended into the sky at the end, and you have a story that is quite likely a work of fiction, that is among the best that Homer, Plato, and others have to offer. The writing style says nothing of the truthfulness of the narrative.

The evidence of Christ is simple to see, not just in the written word but also in the world today.
The truth is it is still a faith, the belief in Him can only truly be based on faith, to the logical mind Christ is impossible, will remain impossible.

To deny Jesus as a Christ is understandable, to deny He lived is beyond reason, Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, they are really irrelevant. We see the evidence in those that chose the belief in Jesus as the real evidence. Those early Christians wrote the evidence on their hearts by their actions and it changed the world.
Asking for written historical documents and denying recorded physical actions of people is just silly. Never mind denying the written word of the many letters that make up the bible.
Its arrogance, dismissing what they dont want to believe and accepting what they do want to believe.

a reply to: borntowatch

Pliny, Tacitus nor Josephus ever mention Jesus of Nazareth, nor Jesus the Son of Joseph. Josephus mentions no less than 19 men named Jesus, not one of them he names as Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the known bastard....etc.

We DO know, through the various writings of historian and the early church fathers, including Justin Martyr, that there were no shortage of men, during the time of Jesus, and thereafter, running around calling themselves "Christs" and "Gods".

If Jesus of Nazareth existed, lets have specifics that aren't supernatural, and don't contradict or stretch the historic records we have. For example, a Jewish entry of the boys and their families that were killed during Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents." Or, how about some solid evidence of the census that took the holy family to Bethlehem to register for taxes. An historic entry of an unusual celestial body in the sky would go along way to prove this person, supposedly born of a virgin and under the auspice of a heralding star existed.

originally posted by: Klassified


The biblical narrative has Jesus walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, calming the storm, turning water to wine, and "transfiguring" on the mount, along with a dead man, and a man who disappeared(died, never existed) a very long time before. Add to that, he allegedly ascended into the sky at the end, and you have a story that is quite likely a work of fiction, that is among the best that Homer, Plato, and others have to offer. The writing style says nothing of the truthfulness of the narrative.

A fiction that many have been slaughtered for rather than give up their beliefs, beliefs that usurped other beliefs (Judaism for one) that they were born in to and would have probably died for.
Many of these people would have witnessed the actions described or other actions that testified the recorded actions had merit.
Jesus ministered for 3 years, only some of His actions are recorded.
Quite likely a work of fiction, you really believe people give their lives up for fiction, were persecuted for fiction.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: borntowatch

Pliny, Tacitus nor Josephus ever mention Jesus of Nazareth, nor Jesus the Son of Joseph. Josephus mentions no less than 19 men named Jesus, not one of them he names as Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the known bastard....etc.

We DO know, through the various writings of historian and the early church fathers, including Justin Martyr, that there were no shortage of men, during the time of Jesus, and thereafter, running around calling themselves "Christs" and "Gods".

If Jesus of Nazareth existed, lets have specifics that aren't supernatural, and don't contradict or stretch the historic records we have. For example, a Jewish entry of the boys and their families that were killed during Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents." Or, how about some solid evidence of the census that took the holy family to Bethlehem to register for taxes. An historic entry of an unusual celestial body in the sky would go along way to prove this person, supposedly born of a virgin and under the auspice of a heralding star existed.

Why would I research what you would never believe, clearly you are recalcitrant towards the Gospels and you want me to waste my time.
Go study
coldcasechristianity.com...

a reply to: borntowatch

You evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

We've just sloshed through all this, for like the 20th time.

a reply to: Klassified

The biblical narrative has Jesus walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, calming the storm, turning water to wine, and "transfiguring" on the mount, along with a dead man, and a man who disappeared(died, never existed) a very long time before. Add to that, he allegedly ascended into the sky at the end, and you have a story that is quite likely a work of fiction, that is among the best that Homer, Plato, and others have to offer. The writing style says nothing of the truthfulness of the narrative.

The rejection of a miracle claim would be based on a philosophical bias rather than a historical evidential claim. Now the four Gospels are four separate sources. The original language in much them show that the information is something that either received orally or from another source.

So on what grounds other than miracle claims do you reject them as true historical narratives of the life of Jesus from men who had lived with him?

a reply to: borntowatch

Quite likely a work of fiction, you really believe people give their lives up for fiction, were persecuted for fiction.

People give up their lives for fiction all the time. It's in the news consistently. It's really sad. Or maybe they don't count, because they aren't Xtians.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So on what grounds other than miracle claims do you reject them as true historical narratives of the life of Jesus from men who had lived with him?

On the same grounds you reject Plato's account of horses flying through the sky pulling a chariot as fiction. We both know Xtianity is about faith, and personal experience. Trying to prove to anyone with critical thinking skills these are factual stories, with the bible as evidence is an exercise in futility. You believe it, and at one time, so did I, but I never tried to convince anyone that the bible was proof. I simply shared my faith in the accuracy of those accounts.
The only proof you'll ever have is your own faith, Servant.