|
|
| Re: nonsense about atheism (241794) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 08:18:43 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:41:02 2007. ""where is a wealth of evidence, with respect to Jesus, "False. There is a wealth of faith and mythology, not evidence. Oe must believe it by Christian faith. By contrast, Jewish faith generaly does not support a resurrection." False there is a wealth of evidence, it's just evidence you won't accept because of your faith blinding you (like all the other non-Christian faiths). Jewish faith does support an escatological (end-of-time) resurrection, or it did in the first century AD, but that was probably changed as an anti-Christian polemic. It didn't support one-off resurrection, like Jesus', so the disciples would be completely alien to the concept (though Jesus told them, they didn't listen and enforced their own prejudices on the matter) Right, OK, the evidence. First of all - the oldest NT manuscripts we have are 100 years after the events, however there is a great wealth of evidence to suggest that these hadn't changed over the 60-70 years since they were written, or that they are different from the texts used to translate Bibles today. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are based on eyewitness sources, and that the earliest book was 1 Corinthians written about 20-25 years afterwards, though the passion narrative of Mark (including the resurrection) came from a source that was pre-37AD, due to the lack of calling the High Priest by his name - you wouldn't call Clinton "the President", without introducing him. The New Testament is by far the most aatestable 1st Century Document. The sheer number of manuscripts and their date make it far more reliable than anything else we have, such as Julius Caeser's 'Gallic Wars'. If they were secular documents, no one would have any problem with their accuracy, however because they aren't people are instantly prejudiced, and despite the evidence, by faith (with no proof), reject them out of hand as historical sources. There are many contemporary secular witnesses backing up the historicity of the Gospel narratives and the testimony of Paul and the early Church as well. Thallus, writing at about the same time as Paul wanted a credible argument against the Christian faith. He chose the sky darkening for three hours from noon to 3pm, on Good Friday. He claimed that this wasn't God showing he was bringing down judgement, but a solar eclipse. It seems he couldn't deny that for three hours in the middle of the day it was like night, but his weasel words to try and debunk it failed - Good Friday was when solar eclipses couldn't happen, as the moon was on the wrong side. Nethertheless, Thallus' attempt at discrediting Christianity, just cements it further. Josephus refers to Jesus being a miracle worker, who was "a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man". Seeing as he was an anti-Christian, Jew, he couldn't deny that Jesus lived and worked miracles, and shockingly goes as far as saying that he might not have been just a man. Tacticus, a Roman historian, confirms that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. He then says that the faith had a new lease of life after that - "The deadly superstition, thus checked for a moment [ie, between the arrest and resurrection of Jesus], broke out afresh in Judea, the first source of the evil" OK, another Roman who hated Christianity is providing evidence that it's true - more on that later. OK, so we have secular evidence that the Bible is reliable in the basics - that Jesus died and that the movement rose up again not long after that death. We also have good dates for much of the New Testament - while eyewitnesses are still alive. We also have that the sources are eyewitness accounts, some of which were written down, into the Pre-Markan Passion Source within a decade, more like 5 years after the events. Ok, now onto the evidence of the New Testament. Jesus was killed on the day before Passover by a crack team of executioners. They were asked to double check that he was dead, which they did. He was buried in a tomb, watched by women as that happened. Several Roman Soldiers were dispatched to be guards on the tomb. On the Sunday morning, several of the women that saw Jesus' burial returned to finish off the job. The massive stone sealing the tomb was rolled away, the grave clothes were left as-was, just with no body inside. The guards had fled. The women went and got some of the followers who had deserted Jesus two days before - all of them were surprised and scared that Jesus wasn't there. Over the course of the next 6 weeks Jesus appeared to many people, ex-followers and those who hadn't followed him, doubters and cynics. He appeared to over 500 at one time, most of whom were alive 25 years later, when the New Testament was starting to be written. He ate fish, had people put their hands into his wounds - he was a physical body, OK, a physical body that could appear out of nowhere. His followers, 50 days after the events at Passover, then proclaimed on the streets that Jesus was resurrected and now had ascended into Heaven, and didn't change their story after being thrown in prison, flogged, close friends executed. They had changed completely from deserters afraid of association with Jesus for fear of their lives, to martyrs, killed for their insistence that Jesus had rose from the dead. OK, lets reinforce that story. That women found the tomb (Mark, for instance doesn't mention Peter) would be a massive embarrassment to the Gospel writers - their testimony would count as nothing. However, because that is what happened, Mark (and the others) reluctantly put it in - they were concerned with facts. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 writes down the wealth of witnesses to the fact that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. That there were eyewitnesses about at the time of writing, any major discrepancy (eg the sky not going dark on Good Friday, or the preaching to a great many in Jerusalem at Pentecost, or the appearance of Jesus to 500 at once) would undermine the whole thing. The Jewish authorities, and the Roman authorities tried to discredit the fledgling faith. The best they could do was "the disciples stole the body out of the tomb". But hang on - the disciples (male at least) had pretty much all gone into hiding in fear of their lives. There were Roman Soldiers guarding the gate, all of whom were found unhurt (though very scared as the punishment for fleeing their posts was death). Why would men, afraid of being killed be killed for moving the body (an abhorrent thing for them, as devout Jews) of the leader who they presumed finished? Why would men, who were scared of death suddenly become totally unafraid and also not grieving their friend who they spent 3 years with? How could 500 people, of mixed belief all hallucinate at the same time? How could the number of believers, just 50 days after the event be over 3000 and growing daily in the city where it had all happened? Richard Swinburne, a philosophy professor writes "The resurrection of Jesus, if it occurred... would clearly be a violation of natural laws which only God could bring about." and also, in a book, he looks at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He sees that the the evidence "makes it very probable indeed [he has an appendix full of probabilities, and gets 97% likelihood] that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead". He started from a completely open base, no assumptions on the existence or nature of God. A professor of Law and Humanities states the obvious "The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether it has occurred. The problem of miracles, then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not philosophical speculation." Sir Edward Clarke, a lawyer wrote "as a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of he evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling". Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice says "In its [the resurrection story's] favour as a living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring a verdict that the resurrection is true". |
|
|
|