Posted on 10/13/2001 1:56:56 AM PDT by lockeliberty
You are right lock..sometimes a spark lays dormant for a long time untill someone fans it..God know where that wind (Spirit)blows to fan the flame
I really believe the word never is wasted..
Care to speculate as to why not?
Bingo. Here's the procedure: first, pre-define the word "proof" to mean "any account of this resurrected man by anyone other than those who were convinced of his deity by the experience."
And then, of course, declare victory when no such "proof" surfaces.
Yes.
Unless verified by multiple well-documented, independently verifiable sources -- all 'first-hand accounts' are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Same as any modern news story.
And I did not realize that anyone disagreed. I find that discouraging.
Points? Forgive me, I really am confused. What 'points'? As I said, I see some interesting unfounded conjecture. Yet not one single 'point' that one would offer in a debate or courtroom.
Please, help me. I am not joking, I don't see any 'points'. I want to know what you find so convincing. I must really be missing something. The entire 'point' I see is the conjecture that the Bible is true, therefore the story must be true.
Islam has a similar book that 'proves' to it's followers things that sound impossible/insane to me. So do 'Mormons', in fact. Given that, can you understand how I need something other than biblical references?
May I ask you to bring up a point from the piece you find particularly impressive? For my benefit?
This seems one example of the conjecture I'm talking about.
The followers of Mohammed went on to conquer much of the world. Is that evidence that Mohammed was really a messenger from god?
Success does not indicate veracity. Not in this world. Perhaps quite the opposite -- look at Messr. Clinton!
The fact that there were people who believed it doesn't prove a thing about the veracity of the original claims. Modern popular culture believes FDR and Clinton are darned near saints.
It could have been one or two people. Especially if he didn't really die . . . if he was not dead when they took him down. Or, perhaps, it was dozens. That is not even unlikely, given the examples of other 'cults'. Look at the Branch Dividians, Jim Jones, etc.
You seem to feel that the fact that many people had to be in on it 'proves' it couldn't be fraud. That makes *no* sense, to me.
Someone said: "Christ was a man whose words and deeds, however great or noteworthy, were exaggerated by his followers who wrote the Gospels. ... The bottom line is, your bible was not written by God or Christ. It was written by men. Flesh and blood human beings with their own agendas, their own mistakes, and their own exaggerations.”
My response was as follows:
Ok, lets examine your statement from a logical and historical perspective. Who were the apostles? Who were the guys who wrote the gospels anyway? They were fishermen, tax collectors etc… nobody all that important.
Question, according to the historical facts, what was their response when Jesus Christ was crucified? Answer: Every last one of them chickened out, ran away and hid themselves in locked rooms. Peter was so brave that he denied that he even knew Jesus when he was confronted by a little servant girl who was approximately 12 years old. They were all cowards, afraid of being killed as Jesus had been because they had been his followers.
Some have said: “the disciples merely stole the body of Christ and said he rose again from the dead.” Problem, there is no way in the world, these 11 men (Judas killed himself) could have taken on the Praetorian guard of between 12 to 16 men who had been assigned to guard the tomb of Jesus. They were the elite SS troops of their day. They guarded the tomb in 3 concentric teams so that anyone wishing to steal the body would have had to conquer one ring of troops, the next and the next before they reached their goal. Every last one of the apostles would have died in the attempt. Ah but some have said ”they stole the body while the guards were asleep.” Sorry, doesn’t wash the guards on the outer most ring had to be wide awake, they could not leave their post nor could they fall asleep. The men within the second ring could relax but they could not leave their post, neither could they go to sleep. Only the men within the third perimeter, the one closest to the tomb were allowed to sleep. Every four hours they rotated. Those on guard in the outer perimeter went to the next ring where they were allowed to relax. Those who had been asleep closest to the tomb were awakened and took up their posts in the outer guard perimeter. If ANY of the men on the outer two perimeters fell asleep. He was awakened by being lit on fire and then THE WHOLE GUARD; everyone of them was put to death for dereliction of duty.
The disciples didn’t steal the body; if they had they would have all died in the attempt. You claim they had an agenda, they didn’t have an agenda, they were scared out of their minds and afraid to death.
Question #2 Would you die for a lie? I wouldn’t and I dare say no one else if they knew the resurrection of Christ was a lie, would either.
Every one of the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus Christ alive from the dead and it totally changed their perspective and their willingness to stand up and boldly tell the world that Jesus Christ was the messiah, was God come in the flesh and that He had risen from the dead. Shortly after the resurrection Peter, the very guy who was afraid to mention he even knew Jesus to a 12 year old girl, boldly proclaimed Jesus Christ and His resurrection before a crowd of over 3000 people. Every one of the apostles lives was transformed after the resurrection. All of them were eventually martyred for their faith. Some were even boiled in oil. Peter, remember him? He was crucified upside down for proclaiming Christ and His resurrection. If he knew that it was not true that it was, as you put it:
Just.. “words and deeds, however great or noteworthy… exaggerated by his followers who wrote the Gospels.” . . . Just a fictitious story written by… “human beings with their own agendas, their own mistakes, and their own exaggerations.”
Then all Peter or any of them would have had to do was say, “it was a LIE, Jesus isn’t the Christ, He isn’t God in the flesh, and He didn’t rise from the dead.” They had no agendas, nor were they exaggerating. Take a look at the apostle Paul. His agenda was to destroy the church and to kill as many Christians as he could in the process. However, after meeting the resurrected Christ Paul became one of the greatest followers and proclaimers of the very Christ he had hated. He tells us in his own words what he endured:
23Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 24Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. 26I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; 27I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches. (2Corinthains 11:23-28)
Would you undergo all of this for lies and exaggerations? Neither would I.
You boldly claim, “the bible was not written by God or Christ”
I end with this, how do you know, where is your proof? Have you read it, studied it, and examined it for yourself? Or are you merely parroting the excuses and derisions of others.
Dr. S
Ahhh... The caveat!
Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.
Therefore, this historian, who has presumably spent his entire life researching Roman history, has many documents that are independently verified.
Excellent point.
"Extremely interested" is correct. The anti-Christians accused the Christians of all sorts of things, including child sacrifice and cannibalism. The Romans (e.g., Diocletian) would have made a great show of these documents -- if only to make the arena games more "interesting" for the irony of the Christians being killed for a lie. Yet the excellent Roman records of the time are mysteriously silent on the singular topic of those conflicting reports.
You're still not understanding it, maybe on purpose. The Apostles who chose to die rather than renounce their faith were themselves the source of the information that Christ had been resurrected. All the 12 Apostles except John plus quite a number of others, such as Barnabas and Stephen, were martyred, most by crucifixion or some other ghastly method. Furthermore, the Branch Davidians didn't willingly choose to die, so that's completely irrelevant. It's probable that the people at Jonestown didn't choose to die either, but even if they had chosen it, it was because they were believing lies someone else had told them. It wasn't a lie they themselves were fabricating.
You say "it could have been one or two people. Especially if he didn't really die." Do you have any information that it was one or two people? Do you have any information he didn't really die? This seems like unfounded conjecture. At the same time you call scripture unfounded conjecture.
There have been hundreds of scholars who devoted their lives to the study of the historical credibility of scripture, based on the same criteria used to determine the accuracy of any historical account. Some of them were doubters and were not seeking to support scriptural authority. The NT has been found to be by any objective criteria (internal consistency, external consistency, the time elapsed between the date of the oldest surviving documents in and the events they describe, etc.) to be more reliable than any other ancient documents which are universally accepted as accurate. If you are not acquainted with any of this, then you shouldn't be spouting these vague generalizations.
Really, I have to ask you to READ IT before you comment on it.
The entire 'point' I see is the conjecture that the Bible is true, therefore the story must be true.
Nowhere does the article say that.
Success does not indicate veracity. Not in this world. Perhaps quite the opposite -- look at Messr. Clinton! The fact that there were people who believed it doesn't prove a thing about the veracity of the original claims. Modern popular culture believes FDR and Clinton are darned near saints.
I never said that success indicates truth, just as the article never said the Bible is true, therefore the story is true.
I said the Apostles were sincere in believing in the resurrection. There is no way Christianity could have started had they not had that belief. The reason for that is the particular circumstances around the birth of Christianity. Those were not the circumstances around the birth of Islam. Muhammad may well have been a liar, and that would do nothing to make the origin of Islam incomprehensible. That's the problem with the argument that arguments for Christianity work as well for other religions: they just don't. With no factor X, there's no Christianity. Other religions aren't like that, but Christianity is. That's not an accident.
It could have been one or two people.
It was far more than that.
Especially if he didn't really die . . . if he was not dead when they took him down.
But He was dead. He could not have survived.
If he had survived that in itself would be a miracle, but no one would think Jesus had conquered death as the Glorified Savior, because He would have been in a very poor condition.
Or, perhaps, it was dozens. That is not even unlikely, given the examples of other 'cults'. Look at the Branch Dividians, Jim Jones, etc.
If every member of the Branch Davidians was lying(for some unstated reason), would they have held up during the standoff? No, of course not. That they did proves they were sincere, just as the Apostles were sincere in believing Jesus was resurrected. That's the belief at the origin of Christianity, and it had to start somehow. C.S. Lewis famously said Jesus was either a liar, a madman, or telling the truth. You could say the same about the Apostles' claims about the Resurrection. The Apostles weren't lying, so either they were telling the truth and Jesus is indeed risen(praise the Lord!), or they were nuts. If they were nuts, the body would still be in the grave. If it was the result of insanity, it would not have happened to all of them, plus many others. Since it wasn't insanity, their sincerity means everything.
You seem to feel that the fact that many people had to be in on it 'proves' it couldn't be fraud. That makes *no* sense, to me.
That dozens of people would hold to what they knew to be a lie to the point of torture and death, for some unstated motive, makes no sense to me.
Surely you realize this is bogus?
"It can't be false because it was written within a few generations"?
Stunningly inaccurate. Not proof at all.
I'm claiming we don't know what happened, and offering a list of possibilities.
I wish you understood why that is different than your claims that the story happened exactly as written . . .
Again you only have conjecture. The Apostles could have just made it all up. You are only guessing that they didn't. They could have been fooled. You are just guessing that they weren't.
I respect the reasons you have your faith. I suspect it makes your life richer, and more meaningful. I also bet that living your life in a 'Christian' manner will lead you to success, happiness and good things.
I just don't agree with the mythology part. Thank you for discussing it with me.
No, it can't be legendary because it was written within a few generations. It's the process of elimination.
Please, don't twist what we say. It's dishonest.
And they died for what they knew to be made up? In horrific ways? When they could simply have told the truth?
They could have been fooled. You are just guessing that they weren't.
Here's a new one. Fooled by what?
I read it. I saw no points. Please, what did I miss?
Pure conjecture on your part. Your only source is their writings. It is possible, but it could also be false.
And then there's the entire question of what if they were duped themselves . . . which is also very possible.
If he had survived that in itself would be a miracle, but no one would think Jesus had conquered death as the Glorified Savior, because He would have been in a very poor condition.
Again, conjecture. You don't even know if he was really crucified. You have only their writings to suggest it, and they had a vested interest in 'selling' that story.
You don't know that. That is a guess. And it doesn't 'prove' that the Apostles were telling the truth.
Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The 'unstated motive' could have been many things -- hope for world power. Actual cash payments. Who knows? The Apostles clearly wouldn't have put any of that in the Bible, and there are no 'independent' accounts of what happened.
I thank you for discussing this with me. I do not wish to leave you thinking I think badly of Christians. I do not. I respect you for your faith.
But I just thought that we were in a different place than it appears we are.
Thanks, and I hope there's time to chat this up again at some future date.
I have twice given you the most pertinent source for the assertions I made. You ignore it. Do you want me to type in the entire book and its bibliography for you? In case having a few other folks make the same assertions will somehow convince you they are valid here are a few links for your amusement.
The Search for the Historical Jesus Link
"No, it would be better if you took responsibility for your assertions. You said it. Prove it." -- A.J.
The preponderance of evidence proves my assertion that Christ is a mythical character. If everything known about Christ is included in previously published pagan stories about more ancient resurrecting god/men then the Christ myth is a copy. The proof you seek is in the early Church Doctrine of "Diabolical Mimicry" wherein the Church Fathers attributed the preeminence of Pagan stories to the influence of the Devil who planted these ealier myths in anticipation of Christ in order to discredit him. I could list fact after fact of this sort but you would call them assertions and demand proof. If you don't know enough of the history of the period to decide for yourself whether or not these facts make a difference then there is no "proof" anyone can offer that will satisfy you.
"Someone's been reading Paine." -- A.J.
I don't know many folks from my generation who haven't read Paine.
"It's just that I don't see any ermined monarchs running around. Do you? I suppose you might be English. I'm not. I'm American. Your little thrones comment is an attempt to tie in unrelated(and long settled) political issues. Anyway, you don't even understand how religion was tied in at the time." -- A.J.
What do you call the Bush Family or the Gore Family or the Kennedy Family if not our version of ermined royalty. Please don't call me English. Until I was ten or so I thought the English were known as "DamnEnglish" thanks to my Irish Grandfather.
I was not referring to the past with my remark about persons occupying pulpits and thrones but rather to the present day political influence of the three principal monotheistic religions and the danger they collectively represent to the future of mankind. If you understood what Paine meant you would understand that a "Throne" can be as simple as a petty bureaucrat's chair.
Yes, it could be. A legend can pop up overnight -- look at Clinton, for goodness' sake. The 'comeback kid'. The 'expert' is pushing a lie, with this claim.
His basis is even flawed. Herodotus was mostly based upon fact, but got many, many stories and details flat out wrong. Herodotus reported several pure myths.
It has happend before, and could happen again. It is pure conjecture to say otherwise.
As you know, there are many possibilities. Just look at the 'wierd stories' around us every day.
To 'prove' that he really was resurected, you'd have to disprove all other possibilities -- at least to my mind.
I appreciate your taking time to try and explain. I just don't get your points. Unfortunately, I have no more time today.
I'd love to discuss this again, some day.
Take care.
But one learns to have enormous respect for such a supremely ultimate sacrifice. . . .and if God Almighty, The Boss has such respect, labels such a substance so Precious, who am I to argue.
I suspect if you had a son or daughter pay the ultimate price for you, you might have a certain quality of respect for the only object remaining, say a blood stained white handkerchief. . . . of if their blood was the only genetic match that saved your life but cost theirs?
I am skeptical that the Loved one's Blood would be 100% merely a dried red liquid thenceforth.
I suppose we could say there's a reverence for His Precious Blood, and enormous respect. But worship seems somehow to just not fit. His Blood is not equal to Him. HE is the one we worship. His Blood is "just" a Precious, Priceless, Powerful substance. . . . probably the most so in all Creation.
Thanks for including the description online, I am always grateful for a reminder in what G-d's Love actually comes down to.
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.