Posted on 01/25/2005 6:15:41 PM PST by gobucks
As to your casting aspersions on the Gospels, I'll let that stand for itself as your own doubting in the validity of Scripture, and note that you left out Paul as an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.
LOL! No one's is, anguish.
Trying to digest these things makes one's brain hurt.
The fact that hundreds saw him after the resurrection, alive and well, apparently doesn't count.
Okay...
And this verifiable evidence is...
I am not against the idea the resurrection happened. I'm trying to get you to understand that some things you take as, pardon the pun, Gospel, are accepted solely on faith and are not verifiable. Because of this, there is no way for them to be tested and confirmed.
The Gospels are as tested and confirmed as any literature of the period from every type of verification that is used.
It is not 'solely' on faith, though it would be silly for me to say that's not part of it. But the Gospels are as authentic as any ancient literature tested, and that is what I am referring to.
Then it should be easy for you to find this verification and post it.
It will take a while, and I don't have this evening because I have to work, but I will find the sources of my information, and give it to you.
I don't just say things without knowing they are true, Junior.
Remember, the Bible does not count for this. You will have to find contemporary sources that verify the Biblical accounts, otherwise you're just using circular reasoning. And, I never said I didn't believe you, I just want you to back up your claims. I'm not singling out this claim, either. I do this with anyone who pulls one of those "everyone knows" things.
And I didn't say 'everyone knows' anything. Obviously you don't know it, and you seem to be pretty well educated.
No, you didn't, true. However, your statements about the resurrection came fairly close. And, I know a lot more than you credit me with. However, I do not cotton to unsupported statements. Fortunately, you've said you'll rectify that situation forthwith.
One is that there is no archaelogical evidence contrary to what is spoken of in the Gospels
One is the proximity of the first copies to the original events (significantly less than 100 years, and far closer than the writings of Homer or Aristotle or Caesar), meaning that the eyewitnesses were still alive when the verifiable manuscripts were written.
One is the number of manuscripts that are available, and their fidelity to one another.
One is that the Gospels are quoted by other authors of the period.
If the same demands were made to prove the authenticity of other ancient texts that are made to prove the Gospels, no one would believe Plato, Aristotle, or Caesar.
It may not be adequate to prove anything to a skeptic like you, but when you judge on the objective evidence, the authenticity of the Gospels is provable.
Now of course if you want to believe the apostle Paul, Matthew, Mark, Dr. Luke and John are all liars, that's quite another matter....
I'll be back with more later.........but probably not until tomorrow.
Why would false manuscripts present Jesus as such a 'loser' if they were only written to spread Christianity? He is hardly the hero type of a made up religion. He got beaten up and murdered.
Another is why would the Gospels, if they were not true, have Jesus appearing first to a woman in a culture where that would have been preposterous, especially if they wanted to spread their 'religion' around?
I believe that the first authenticated manuscript of Caesar's Gallic Wars was written after 500 A.D. I'll check to see if I can find the actual date, but it was far less reliable than the Gospel manuscripts which were somewhere around 100 A.D., I believe.
I'll see if I can find both those dates.
Nonsense. There's no way any scientist could rule out the ressurection of Jesus or any other miracle he performed. That's because the assertion that he rose from the dead, changed water into wine, raised Lazurus, etc can't be tested empirically.
And no, just because we've never observed anyone else rising from the dead or changing water into wind does not mean Jesus could not do it.
On the other hand, a literal reading of Genesis 1 presents all kinds of testable hypotheses, many of which have been falsified.
You post images from a website that defines modern fascism in a movie of 14 points ... and all 14 points are used to define G.W. Bush as a modern Nazi. So, you patronize Bush Hating web sites, and use them to post to FreeRepublic??
Interesting, and you are a Freeper? Really interesting....
http://Nobliefs.com is for the far leftist lunatic fringe.
Troll Alert.
I've been doing a little research on this to, and the only sites that have anything on the oldest extant Caesar's Gallic Wars are all Christian sites basically parroting the same information (most verbatim). I'd love to see something from a museum site, or a university or something.
The life of Jesus parallels the life of Mithras some 250 years earlier. It could all be simple propaganda to win over followers of Mithras.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.