Replies

Moreover, if there were evidence, differential equations, and other mathematical proofs which would establish, for example, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the belief in such would not be a matter of faith.

It depends on whether or not you have faith in mathematical proofs and differential equations. However, the assertion is absurd on the face of it. You are holding Jesus to a higher standard of proof than you likely attribute to any historical figure. It is not that difficult to provide enough evidence of the Godhood of Jesus to demand a verdict. You must, however, have some faith in the historical sources--just like you must of any historical figure. Caesar for example. Or Aristotle.

What standards of proof do you require? How do you determine, historically speaking, if something did or did not happen? If Jesus truly did all it He claimed to do and truly did rise from the dead in the manner described in the Bible, wouldn't you agree that would be pretty compelling evidence?

What standards of proof do you require?

You hit the nail on the head. Truth is a human invention which requires a human to judge, for himself, whether or not any particular evidence sufficiently establishes a proposition. For some, the proferred evidence will be sufficient to establish a truth, for others it will be insufficient. In each case, however, there is a non-reducable human judgment to make that decision, and the judgment itself is not supported by any evidence -- it is a leap.

Things are true, not because we believe them to be true, but because we judge them to be true.

> You are holding Jesus to a higher standard of proof than you likely attribute to any historical figure.

As it should be. Consider: if you get on a soapbox and proclaim, "I had jello today," We could easily take your word for it. If, however, you proclaim, "I am Elvis reborn of an alien mother," you'd better either back that up or get ready for the nice fellows in the white suits.

> How do you determine, historically speaking, if something did or did not happen?

A lot of it depends on the amazingness of the claimed event. See above. One good way to to examine the sources... if *separate*, *independant* sources report essentially the same thing, that's a good sign. If *opposing* sources report essentially the same thing, that's even better. If, however, the claims come solely or largely from a source or sources who would stand to benefit from the acceptance of the tale, that's not as good evidence. Who among us would seriously listen to New Agers blather on about how Yogi Soandso flapped his knees, attained Enlightenment, and flew around the room?

>If Jesus truly did all it He claimed to do and truly did rise from the dead in the manner described in the Bible, wouldn't you agree that would be pretty compelling evidence?

Uh, no. From your perspective, if I invented Flubber yesterday and flew around my living room... that would NOT be good evidence that I invented Flubber yesterday and flew around my living room. What *would* be good evidence is Actual Evidence, not just the claim.

If, indeed, Jesus did what his compatriots claimed he did, then, yes, that would certainly bolster the case for his divinity something fierce. However, the evidence for those actual miraculous events is pretty lean.