To me, there is truth. However, you can never know truth for sure.[/qs]
That is a self-refuting statement. If you can't know truth for sure, then how are you sure that you can't know truth for sure? Is it the truth that you can't know the truth?
Here is one truth that I can know for sure: I think, therefore I am.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
I think that the Bible is excellent proof for Jesus. Why do you say that it was not written by eye witnesses? It was! Matthew was an apostle, Mark was the recorder for Peter who was another apostle, and John was even one of Jesus' Inner three! That is plenty of eye witness testimony.
If these people made up stuff about Jesus, why would they be willing to die for it? People only die for their beliefs if they believe them. If these writers made up these beliefs, they would obviously know that they were false, even if others believed what they said. When the pressure and torture came, atleast one would have admitted they made this stuff up in order to stop the torture and escape death. Therefore, comparisons with Jones, HalBopp etc don't work. They work only with other followers of Jesus dying for their beliefs.
Also, there were many eye-witnesses to his resurrection. 500 people saw him at one time - mass hallucination would not be possible for this. Doubting Thomas TOUCHED Jesus and felt the wounds in his hands and side. Did anyone TOUCH Elvis? And eat a meal with him? And have Elvis suddenly appear in a locked room? There are numerous other sightings of Jesus as well.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
Almost every single event described in the Bible has failed when the archeological data comes in.
Umm.... where did you get this? Archeology has done nothing but PROVE the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Joshua conquered a whole bunch of towns that went there.
Umm... the ruins of Jericho exists and has been examined many times, and the findings totally agree with Biblical accounts. Just because other towns have not been discovered yet don't mean they don't exist under the dirt somewhere.
Even the United Monarchy, the period of David and Solomon has not been evidenced by the findings over the last three decades.
In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon. Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.
The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read. Two of the lines included the phrases "The King of Israel" and "House of David."
Archeology has done nothing but prove the accuracy of the Bible.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
You are using biblical stories to prove biblical stories. That is circular reasoning.
Look. You want proof that Jesus existed, so I give you the Bible. The Bible says Jesus existed. Now it is YOUR job to show me why the Bible is wrong or should not be considered accurate. Shoot away. I'm waiting.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
The Josephus passage has been tampered with by later Christans, it can hardly be considered good evidence. Josephus may not have originally said anything about Jesus at all.
Josephus wrote:
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
The consensus of most Christian and Jewish scholars is that this passage is authentic, but that early Christian copyists inserted certain phrases that Josephus did not originally write. Three elements seem to be added.
1. The phrase "about this time there lived Jesus, a wise man" is not normally used by Christians when talking about Jesus, so this seems to be writted by Josephus. But the next phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," implies that Jesus was more than human and was most likely added by Christians later.
2. When Josephus mentions James, he says that "Jesus was called the Christ. However, here it says Jesus was the Christ. This is the second element that was probably added.
3. The phrase "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life" indicates a clear belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and is most likely added as well.
The rest of the passage Josephus originally wrote about Jesus would be without those three points. But still it corroborates important information about Jesus, such as his martyrdom, being a wise teacher who established a wide and lasting following, and being crucified by Pilate.
It is unlikely that "Josephus may not have originally said anything about Jesus at all." He mentions him in regards to James as well, remember. To make this assertion is mere conjecture.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
I agree its primary function is not as a history book. But IT IS STILL historically accurate!
Did you ignore this here?
In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon. Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.
The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read. Two of the lines included the phrases "The King of Israel" and "House of David."
There is no evidence that the Exodus as described in the Bible ever happened.
What about that huge thread about the exodus video and the corral covered chariot wheels? (I admit I have not read most of the thread, so I might not know something I should here)
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
Base on your logic, I could easily claim that there are green goblins running around and assume it as fact until someone can prove that there are no green goblins. Heck, I can claim that the tooth fairy exists and everyone has to accept it as fact until someone could check out every corner of the universe to disprove that tooth fairies don't exist.
Your analogy is flawed.
If you claimed there are green goblins running around, I would say, "have you seen any?" You would have to say, "Well, no." Lets apply this to Jesus. The writers claim that a resurrected Jesus is running around. You ask, "Have you seen him?" and they reply, "Yes! We saw him, we touched him, talked with him, ate with him!"
You can further ask about the goblins, "Has anyone else seen them?" You would again have to answer, "No." Ask the disciples, "Have anyone besides you also seen Jesus?" and they would reply "Yes! He appeared to many other people, even 500 people at one time!"
You can go even further and ask, "Is there any non-eyewitness evidence that green goblins are running around? Footprints? Pictures? Dwelling places?" Again, you have to answer, "No." Ask the disciples this question. They would say, "Yes! He was killed on the cross and sealed in a tomb for three days. On the third day, the heavy stone sealing it had been rolled away and his body was not there! Soldiers had even been guarding it. Furthermore, some of us saw angels, who told us that Jesus had risen from the dead!" One could add that his body was never found, indicating his corpse was not hidden somewhere else.
Your goblin example involves proving goblins don't exist by looking for evidence until all possible places to look have been exhausted. I am trying to prove somthing DOES exist. It is not a matter of "checking every corner of the universe" to find evidence. The evidence is already in front of you!
In your goblin example, if someone said he has seen goblins, you need to question them and find out whether their statement is good evidence. In the same way, the gospels state many things about Jesus. Now, you need to ask questions in order to determine if the gospels are good evidence for Jesus. I have already mentioned several ways in which they ARE good evidence, such as the conviction with which the writers stuck to their beliefs.
The burden of proof always falls on the side that claims the positive.
I agree! And delivered! You asked for proof of Jesus, I gave you the Bible!
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
The thread about the Exodus video is a classic example of psuedo-science. It's a group of folk whose faith is so weak that they will grab at anything, no matter how stretched, to support the Bible. It's an example of placing the conclusion first and then forcing or manufacturing evidence to support that conclusion.
That is neither good science or good theology.
Well based on what I know (and again I admit I have not read most of the thread) it seems that this particular section of the red sea is the only palce where a huge group of poeple could cross if the sea were dried (because of the cliffs everywhere else) and they coral are in the shape of chariot wheels. What bad science/theology about that? (Yikes, getting off topic
This message has been edited by General Nazort, 08-04-2004 12:23 AM
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
A circular argument is a circular argument. We asked you how you could verify that the bible can be treated as a history book and you responded telling us to disprove your assumption.
Your original question was not how I could verify that the Bible can be treated as a history book, but proof for the existence of Jesus. I gave you the Bible.
OK. Why can the Bible be treated as a history book? Here is a reason. The people who wrote it had nothing to gain by it, so why would they do it if it were not true? Would they not recant under tortue if it were not true?
Here is another. This is about the historical accuracy of Luke as a historian. In Luke 3:1 he mentions Lysanias as being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For many years, people thought that Luke didn't know what he saying writing about, because Lysanius was not a tetrarch - he was the ruler of the Chalcis half a centry earlier. However, later an incrsiption was found from the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14 to 37) which named Lysanius as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus, jsut as Luke had written. The reason is that there were two people named Lysanius - Luke knew what he was talking about.
I can provide lots more evidence, but that is all for now.
If someone told me they saw and touched goblins, etc, I would ask them questions to see how reliable they were. I would seek information regarding their mental state at the time, if they have any motives for making these claims, and the environmental conditions in which they had this sighting. I encourage you to ask these questions about the Bible.
This message has been edited by General Nazort, 08-04-2004 12:52 AM
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
When you don't think, just as in deep sleep, or under anesthesia, then you aren't?
Ifen: Stop being silly. I am just saying that if you are able to think and you are aware that you are thinking, then you MUST exist, otherwise you would not be able to think. This is a truth no one can deny without breaking the laws of logic and rationality.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
You have raised a lot of good points, and I need to do some research before attempting to answer all of them.
However, let me pose this question:
If the gospels were written after the destruction of Jersusalem in 70 A.D., wouldn't it be very clearly mentioned? This was a catastrophic event for the Jews. In particular, in the book of Hebrews, where the author is arguing that worship in the temples is obsolete, one would have expected to find a reference to the destruction of the temple in Jersusalem, which would have greatly strengthened the author's argument.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
The nature of existence of the self is very interesting to me. I think there may be a sense that your statement is true. That is that the thought "I exist" is the self. But what kind of existence is that?
I would not say that a thought is the same as the self. The thought and the person thinking the thought are different and seperate. If you believe that they are the same, then I guess you could say when you stop thinking you stop existing... hmm hadn't really thought of that before. However, if you stop existing when you stop thinking, how come you can start thinking and therefore existing again? That just doesn't make sense to me.
This Antonio Damasio sounds interesting. What exactly did he say Descarte's error was? ARGH getting way of topic
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
Actually, the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels DO mention the destruction of the Temple (e.g. G.Mark Ch.13), which is one reason they are usually dated (shortly) AFTER 70CE. Scholars do not believe in prophecy.
Actually, many scholars DO believe in prophecy! Mostly atheist scholars start with the "prophecy is impossible" assumption because they are biased (they already believe Christ was not supernatural.) Jesus is reported as predicting the destruction of the Temple in Mark and also in Matthew 24. If you start with the ASSUMPTION that prophecy is impossible, of course you will date those gospels later than 70 A.D. because you assume that those lines were put in after the fact had become known. Someone would do this so people would think highly of Christs' "miraculous" powers. However, if you make this assumption you also throw out everything else supernatural, and the message of the gospels becomes virtually destroyed. You cannot make this assumption based on your prior beliefs.
If this prophecy is a fake, one would expect a lot more to be said about it so that people could clearly point to how it "came true." But it is only mentioned ONCE in each gospel. If I were trying to hoax a prophecy, I would probably put in more about it. This seems to indicate that the prophecy is possibly genuine.
Indeed, Hebrews may have been pre 70 CE, for this very reason. But, Hebrews says nothing about the Ministry of Jesus.
What about this from Hebrews 5:7? This gives indication of knowledge of the Ministry of Jesus:
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
"During the days of Jesus' life on earth." This refers to His Ministry! Also Bebrews 10:5
Therefore, when Christ came into the world...
More indication of existence as a person on earth. Hebrews 13:12
And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.
Are you seriously saying that this is a "spiritual," "symbolic," or "heavenly" city and gate? This obviously is refering to the crucifiction of Jesus outside the gates of the city of Jerusalem, at Golgotha!
In fact it's clear the writer of Hebrews had never heard of Jesus of Nazareth - * Hebrews refers to the coming as if its the FIRST, not the second
This is not true! Hebrews 9:25-28 says:
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
This CLEARLY says Christ came to earth a first time (to die for our sins) and that he "will appear a second time." If the writer is anticipating his 2nd coming, obviously he had a first coming that the writer knows about.
Hebrews describes the Son in platonic terms as a spiritual being
Can a spiritual being have blood, die, and be sacrificed, as Hebrews clearly states? Possibly, a spiritual being could die and be sacrificed, but can it have blood? It is a spirit! You could argue the blood is symbolic, but this is stretching things pretty thin. The more plausible explanation is that the writer of Hebrews regarded Jesus as a real, physical human being, who could, as a human, bleed.
I see all of this, and many other things, as evidence for the existence of an actual, historical Jesus.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
I read the last page of that thread, - it was quite intersting. I am really learning a lot in these debates. Did anyone ever ask Doherty about the use of kata sarka for both Jesus and Paul himself?
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
™ Version 4.2