I agree with you that relying on 2000+ year old writings for proof of God is questionable, which is why I offered you the modern science based "proofs". Once the existence of God is accepted, what men have written about the divine may be consulted, and different such records compared, for further details. And I would note that there is far more consistency across the various religious writings than many Christians recognize, including the existence of multiple entities that are considered divine, as well as lesser spiritual entities, both helpful (angelic) and harmful (demonic).
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I agree with you that relying on 2000+ year old writings for proof of God is questionable, which is why I offered you the modern science based "proofs". Once the existence of God is accepted, what men have written about the divine may be consulted, and different such records compared, for further details. And I would note that there is far more consistency across the various religious writings than many Christians recognize, including the existence of multiple entities that are considered divine, as well as lesser spiritual entities, both helpful (angelic) and harmful (demonic).
I agree that consistency is a paramount consideration, which is why I major on harmonization of truth/Scripture as I connect spiritual dots. I also affirm your assertion that we walk by what appears to be most likely aka faith in the best belief.
I am not sure what biblical texts you think have changed, although I agree that Scripture contains some discrepancies.
I think that a bigger problem than physical tampering or rewriting of GW is people tampering by misinterpreting GW,
with TULIP being a prime example on CC.
B
Blue155
Guest
While writing to an historical address to one of their cities in Massachusetts, Edmund Bennett came across a newspaper file of the Revolutionary period, a letter, or what appeared to be a letter, written from that place, giving an account of a meeting held there, in 1774, and a copy of some patriotic resolutions passed thereat. The writer had long been dead and all the people involved in that meeting were also gone. The printer and the publisher, gone. There was no person alive who could testify that the meeting had ever happened. But Edmund had no hesitation in adopting the account as genuine, and using it as an established event in the history of that town. The mere fact of its existence under such circumstances was proof of its genuineness and authenticity until proven otherwise. He thought to himself, what would have been his joy if he found four such letters, in four different papers, written by four different persons, giving an account of the same transaction? And if some variations were found as to the particulars of that event, would that overthrow all belief in the truthfulness of the accounts?
He says, Nay, would it not rather furnish stronger proof of their integrity? Had all four accounts been exactly the alike, the suspicion would have been irresistible that one was copied from the other, or that all were taken from one and the same original. The several accounts of many important battles in the world, and of many other historical events, vary in many particulars, and yet no one thereby has any doubt of their occurrence. The various editions of Shakespeare’s plays differ as much do some chapters of Matthew and Luke in their respective accounts of the same transaction. What four of us could go away from this meeting, and give the exact same account of what transpires? What four witnesses under oath in a court of justice ever describes a transaction exactly alike? And yet, their testimony is taken as reliable, in cases involving the most important interests, even of life and death. Judges and juries are apt to discredit a cause in which all the witnesses tell a long story in exactly the same words.
Apply this same principle to this address. The four Gospels exist; they purport to contain the history of our Lord Jesus Christ; the authors are not living; the characters they describe therein are no more. No man living knows by direct personal knowledge that these things were ever so. But why not apply the same rules of evidence and belief to scriptural narratives as to any other? Being in existence, and minute account of passing events, they must either be genuine and true, or else a gross forgery. There is no alternative; for the self-delusion theory is preposterous. They were true when written, or were then an absolute falsehood. If the latter, they must at that very time have been to be false, and an imposition on the credulity of those then living. These stories began to be published not long after the crucifixion. Many person were then living who could have easily refuted the statements of the evangelists had they been untrue. The enemies of Jesus were still alive and active. The Scribe and the Pharisee, the Priest and the Levite….they had the disposition, the opportunity, and the incentive to deny the story of the miraculous birth, the spotless life, the marvelous works, the death, the resurrection...but so far as we know, no person then living ever uttered a protest against these accounts, and for two thousand years they have been received and treated as veritable history.
What would be our opinion of a man who denied the real existence of another merely because four photographs of him, one a front and one back view, and two others of opposite sides of his face, did not present the same features? Is it not from the four views combined that you get the fullest and truest idea of the person portrayed? So from the combined pictures of the acts and doings of our Lord, in the four Gospels, or rather this fourfold Gospel, do we best comprehend the fullness of his life and power.
Adapted/Taken from Edmund Bennett’s The Four Gospels
He says, Nay, would it not rather furnish stronger proof of their integrity? Had all four accounts been exactly the alike, the suspicion would have been irresistible that one was copied from the other, or that all were taken from one and the same original. The several accounts of many important battles in the world, and of many other historical events, vary in many particulars, and yet no one thereby has any doubt of their occurrence. The various editions of Shakespeare’s plays differ as much do some chapters of Matthew and Luke in their respective accounts of the same transaction. What four of us could go away from this meeting, and give the exact same account of what transpires? What four witnesses under oath in a court of justice ever describes a transaction exactly alike? And yet, their testimony is taken as reliable, in cases involving the most important interests, even of life and death. Judges and juries are apt to discredit a cause in which all the witnesses tell a long story in exactly the same words.
Apply this same principle to this address. The four Gospels exist; they purport to contain the history of our Lord Jesus Christ; the authors are not living; the characters they describe therein are no more. No man living knows by direct personal knowledge that these things were ever so. But why not apply the same rules of evidence and belief to scriptural narratives as to any other? Being in existence, and minute account of passing events, they must either be genuine and true, or else a gross forgery. There is no alternative; for the self-delusion theory is preposterous. They were true when written, or were then an absolute falsehood. If the latter, they must at that very time have been to be false, and an imposition on the credulity of those then living. These stories began to be published not long after the crucifixion. Many person were then living who could have easily refuted the statements of the evangelists had they been untrue. The enemies of Jesus were still alive and active. The Scribe and the Pharisee, the Priest and the Levite….they had the disposition, the opportunity, and the incentive to deny the story of the miraculous birth, the spotless life, the marvelous works, the death, the resurrection...but so far as we know, no person then living ever uttered a protest against these accounts, and for two thousand years they have been received and treated as veritable history.
What would be our opinion of a man who denied the real existence of another merely because four photographs of him, one a front and one back view, and two others of opposite sides of his face, did not present the same features? Is it not from the four views combined that you get the fullest and truest idea of the person portrayed? So from the combined pictures of the acts and doings of our Lord, in the four Gospels, or rather this fourfold Gospel, do we best comprehend the fullness of his life and power.
Adapted/Taken from Edmund Bennett’s The Four Gospels
Looks like I’ve missed this since I don’t click on a lot of GWH threads.
Let’s start off with a couple of baseline points.
Point number 1: People in the past were stupid.
Engineers today say that it’s almost an impossible task to build the pyramids that people built 5000 years ago using modern tools like cranes and machinery.
And you have to build them with an incredible amount of precision where the sunlight has to go through many intentionally open holes through the layers of floors so the light shines a tomb , once a year!
Because of this incredible achievement a lot of people today say a lot of dumb stuff such as “aliens build them”.
Now, because today you have a phone and a laptop this makes you somehow feel superior to the people in the past but that phone and laptop has caused you nothing but confusion and depression in your life.
Who’s stupid now?
Point number 2: Evidence of God.
The evidence of God is not on a gps location where you can go and see God and run some tests.
The evidence of God is everywhere in His signature in everything that you see and experience.
Everywhere you look into you see the signature of an Intelligent Creator.
This is where we humans who are created with free will have to make a choice.
Do we accept this as enough proof for a Creator? Or do we make up flat-earth stuff (for which we have no proof) such as multiverse or matrix theory (which still lead to a Creator onto themselves)
What do you think about this?
It’s unescapable!
TULIP is definitely a problem there we fully agree.
As for texts that have changed, Galatians 2:5 is one example. In roughly half the manuscripts it says that Paul and Titus stood firm against Tious being circumcised, but in the rest of them it states that they did NOT. Another example is in Mark. Four different endings are known from ancient manuscripts. And the woman caught in adultery in John does not appear in the earliest manuscripts at all. So there are three fast examples of changes in the text. The John passage is easiest to discount as an addition, but Mark get harder as the shortest ending does not have any hint of a physical resurrection so the issue becomes, why would the physical resurrection be dropped if it was true? And as for whether Paul and Titus submitted, that becomes pure theological speculation, I am inclined towards them not submitting.
Now if my understanding of 1 John 5:8 is accurate and it references what we now call the Shroud of Turin, which would also fit with Galatians 3:1, adding in an account of a physical resurrection at some point in time, most likely after 70 CE, makes perfect sense to protect the Shroud, and John then makes a concealed reference to it. A reference that believers would recognize but which outsiders could easily miss, and as the Shroud passed from common knowledge due to the need to keep it secret and safe from Roman seizure. the veiled reference became a problem to explain and was eventually turned into a statement of agreement and the Johannine clause added (oops, another change to scripture).
Might I ask what issues you see with 1 John 5:8 possibly referencing the Shroud? The suggestion has cleared peer review by Johannine scholars by the way.
My NIV has footnotes about Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, but not Gal. 2:5.
I explained my understanding of 1John 5:8 ("the Spirit and the water and the blood agree") in #572, which was based on viewing the immediate context for the phrase you quoted beginning in v. 6, which says that JC came by water and blood, which echoes what was said in John 3:3-6, which was that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit or spiritually as well as of the water of physical birth. Not sure how the blood jibes, unless it is also part of the physical outflow from the womb at birth. Thus, the water and blood testify to the humanity of Jesus and the Spirit testifies to his divinity.
I will say that connecting the Shroud of Turin with Gal. 3:1 is a vaguely interesting theory, but the empty tomb combined with Mat. 28:11-15 is more impressive. Have you heard of the Talpiot Tomb? An anti-resurrection theory cites that as evidence.
Blasphemy- And finally : Is Ananas (pineapple) accepted on a pizza ? That’s a hard yes 100% fact.
But early Chrisian legends say that Jesus's tomb was NOT empty. Some legends claim that one of the thieves who hung beside Jesus had his body somehow appear in Jesus's tomb, another legend claims both bodies were there. Paul never mentions the empty tomb either. The Shroud itself would have been considered adequate proof of resurrection in the first century and would explain reported accounts of Tiberius sending a trusted person to verify the reported resurrection and his expectation that in 36 or 7, 3 or 4 years after the resurrection, he thought that he could travel to Jerusalem to see the evidence for himself.
I would note that the Shroud also fits very well with Paul's chronology for what he learned and when he saw the risen Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 as well as the implication that what he saw was no different than what James, John, Peter and over 500 people saw. And there is yet another possible reference, more oblique though, in Paul that could fit with the Shroud. I do not agree with those who see a reference to it in Timothy though, that is going too far.
Every time Paul mentions the resurrection implies the empty tomb. Not sure if you think a legend is worthy of believing. IMO the most impressive verse for apologetics is in 1Cor. 15, where Paul admits that if Christ is not raised then our faith is futile.
I fully agree with Paul that unless Christ was raised our hope is futile, but raised, in 1st century thought does not necessarily mean physically raised. !st century thought did not recognize physical resurrection. Augustus was resurrected. Tiberius was resurrected. Numerous others were resurrected. Do you really want to say that all these people were physically resurrected? And if not, where is the undisputable evidence that Paul was using the term differently. Paul was writing before the gospel accounts of a physical resurrection existed for the most part. He might have heard tales about a physical resurrection before he wrote 1 Tim 1:3-5 as the Pastorals were most likely written after 68 CE, but that is unclear.
And I would note that an unsupported legend is nothing to place much emphasis on, but when there is support, as exists in this case, you have to wonder why such a legend arose and if there is some distorted truth behind it. The legend about Tiberius wanting to travel to Jerusalem to see the evidence for the risen Christ seems to have a solid basis behind it, solid enough to cast doubt on it being legend as opposed to inconvenient history. Then both Justin Martyr and Tertullian were bold enough to claim that there was support in the Roman archives for Tiberius's support for Christianity adds more credence. But such claims are exceedingly inconvenient for tradition.
By the way, were you aware that there is hard archeological evidence that Antipas supported Jesus, and very strong evidence that Joseph Caiaphas and his father-in-law Annas also supported Jesus and that Pilate came to support Jesus?
Also, given that in 54 CE, Rome did not have enough troops in Syria and Anatolia combined to have put down a serious rebellion in Judea, yet in 66 they lost an entire legion and were still able to rapidly begin to put down the Jewish rebellion using only troops from Syria and Anatolia. Ever wonder how that happened? Or have you ever wondered why Antipas went with Imperial Legate Vitellius (the father or the short-term emperor) to the Euphrates and came back to Jerusalem by himself? Note, I only reference history that appears relevant to the discussion, even if tradition claims that it is "clearly irrelevant" (I read that as "dangerous to tradition").
I believe only Jesus was truly resurrected physically so that we doubting Thomases could put our hands where he was wounded although the spiritual bodies Paul spoke of in 1Cor. 15 are undoubtedly healed and have immortal capabilities.
If you ever find evidence for MFW that is indisputable on CC, please let me know.
Mark and Luke were associated with Paul, but their sources for the life and resurrection of Jesus were probably mainly oral.
No I have not encountered the other items you mentioned.
To give you a little help, in 54 CE a war was begun by Armenia, with Parthian backing (I hope you know about Parthia, it was considered a very serious threat to Rome). Claudius was soon assassinated, plausibly because he was not doing as some political leaders in Rome wanted him to do in response, and Nero became emperor, with two "advisors". Nero appointed Corbulo as governor over at least two provinces in Anatolia, authorized him to take one legion from the Rhine frontier, one from Syria and raise two more. The Syrian legion was worthless and needed reequipped and trained. Thus, eastern Anatolia, where Ephesus is (the location of a group of Praetorian guards allocated to help Corbulo was stationed) had three legions being fully equipped and trained. While this process was going on, the orders were for the legions to stand firm against an enemy that was known to use flaming and poisoned arrows. Might any of this information sound familiar? Eventually a peace treaty was signed between Armenia and Rome in 64, roughly 3 weeks before the Great Fire which the Christians were blamed for and subsequently used as entertainment in the arena and human torches, punishments given only to non-citizens guilty of treason. The four legions remain in Anatolia and Syria for the next 12 years until some of them were used in Judea. Punishments for both Christians and rebelling Jews were the same as used in 64.
As for indisputable evidence, none exists, just as none exists for the physical resurrection, but interestingly enough, more exists to counter the physical resurrection than does to support it. But for doubting Thomases in the 1st century, the Shroud would have been proof positive until the Shroud was actively concealed to protect it after God's protection seemed to have failed. A case of, "if you doubt, go to Jerusalem and see for yourself", as opposed to "well I saw it and I am telling the truth".
As for indisputable evidence, none exists, just as none exists for the physical resurrection, but interestingly enough, more exists to counter the physical resurrection than does to support it. But for doubting Thomases in the 1st century, the Shroud would have been proof positive until the Shroud was actively concealed to protect it after God's protection seemed to have failed. A case of, "if you doubt, go to Jerusalem and see for yourself", as opposed to "well I saw it and I am telling the truth".
Thanks for the info. I guess the most interesting statement is that you think there is more evidence against Jesus being resurrected bodily than for it. Not sure what you have in mind there.
B
Blue155
Guest
It’s not the label “chocolate,” which makes it what it is. We know it by the taste and the label proclaims what our taste attests. It’s not the label “Bible” which makes it what it is. We know it by the evidences discovered and the label proclaims what the evidence attests.
All the evidence for a bodily resurrection is based on gospel accounts, two of which are potentially added after the gospels were written, (Acts is the second half of Luke, not independent) and Paul stating that he saw the risen Christ, but no clear statement as to what he saw. Against this there is one hard piece of evidence for the Shroud dating to 33-4 CE and "clearly irrelevant" historic records, plausibly dating to the mid-30's, and 1 John and Galatians, subject to interpretation, as well as circumstantial evidence, and the actual Shroud which is clearly not made by human hands, although the exact process is still debated.
Creating an account of physical resurrection looks a lot like a cover story to deflect from the Shroud, at least to my mind, and would explain the additions to the gospel accounts. And a physical resurrection to satisfy the doubting Thomas's works only for a very few who happened to be in the Jeruysalem area at the proper time. If the Shroud is the proof, it was available for viewing for a good 30 years before starting into intermittent concealment but is still available to doubting Thomas's today.
A fuller argument contains over 30 8-1/2x11 pages of 11-point text, plus 15-20 pages of plausible history. There truly is a lot that tradition does not tell us.
Creating an account of physical resurrection looks a lot like a cover story to deflect from the Shroud, at least to my mind, and would explain the additions to the gospel accounts. And a physical resurrection to satisfy the doubting Thomas's works only for a very few who happened to be in the Jeruysalem area at the proper time. If the Shroud is the proof, it was available for viewing for a good 30 years before starting into intermittent concealment but is still available to doubting Thomas's today.
A fuller argument contains over 30 8-1/2x11 pages of 11-point text, plus 15-20 pages of plausible history. There truly is a lot that tradition does not tell us.
Well again, I find the empty tomb in the NT more impressive than those traditions and the S of T,
and I hope to resurrect and learn the undisputable answers to all of our questions--but maybe not for another 20 years.
B
Blue155
Guest
The reason people cast doubt onto the gospel accounts is because the claims and strength of them. In court, a prosecutor isn’t going to want to disprove the weak evidence. They are going to want to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the strength of the evidence to persuade the jurors of it being true. There’s a reason no one writes books, or hosts podcasts or debates refuting whether Zeus threw down lightning bolts, or whether Odin rode on an eight-legged horse. Why? Because they don’t persuade.
Prosecutors don’t waste time dismantling irrelevant testimony that has zero relevancy with the case. They attack things that do…such as the eyewitnesses, physical evidence, confessions, etc. Why? Because those are the things that convince juries.
What do the gospels function as? Early, multiple, independent accounts, reliable chain of custody, named eyewitnesses and hostile witnesses, geographical, political and cultural references/precision, willingness of witness to suffer and die, public claims made where refutation was possible.
The Gospels are challenged precisely because they carry that kind of weight. Weak evidence is ignored. Strong evidence has to be discredited. That’s why the Gospels are attacked.
That’s exactly what we see with the resurrection:
“When they heard this, some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter’” (Acts 17:32)
Prosecutors don’t waste time dismantling irrelevant testimony that has zero relevancy with the case. They attack things that do…such as the eyewitnesses, physical evidence, confessions, etc. Why? Because those are the things that convince juries.
What do the gospels function as? Early, multiple, independent accounts, reliable chain of custody, named eyewitnesses and hostile witnesses, geographical, political and cultural references/precision, willingness of witness to suffer and die, public claims made where refutation was possible.
The Gospels are challenged precisely because they carry that kind of weight. Weak evidence is ignored. Strong evidence has to be discredited. That’s why the Gospels are attacked.
That’s exactly what we see with the resurrection:
“When they heard this, some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter’” (Acts 17:32)
Here are some observations about the gospels and Acts. The first gospel written was Mark in the 40's. There is no claim about being an eyewitness, multiple known endings and likely edited to today's version, likely the first does not mention any physical resurrection, and appears written to suggest the apotheosis of Jesus, if so it needs no physical resurrection. The second was John, originally written likely in the mid-50's. The version we have today seems to have a 2nd ending and be a heavily edited version, but the original and the edited version both claim to be eyewitness account. Only the 2nd ending includes a physical resurrection. Matthew follows a standard Greco-Roman biography style, likely mid to late 60's, heavily dependent on Mark with no clear evidence of editing and is possibly the first to record a physical resurrection. Luke is the last gospel written, also Greco-Roman biography style, also heavy dependence on Mark but also the first of a two-part work and includes material found in no other gospel. Acts follows a Greco-Roman adventure-romance style and displays a great awareness of other classic literature works. Overall, the specific writers referenced by scenarios among all these works include, in no specific order, at the very least the author of Genesis, Euripides, Plato, Virgil, Homer, Augustus and local Phrygian legends. Old Testament prophesies are censored, ignoring some referenced in Revelation and Hebrews as well as numerous others not referenced in any recognized New Testament works but known from other Jewish literature of the era. and including some new ones. When one catches all these points and realizes what they are saying, it can get very interesting. Even more interesting is when hard evidence, that is evidence that no human hand has been able to alter, unlike written records, dating to the 30's of the 1st century, contradicts some aspects of these accounts.
And just as there are varieties of chocolate, there are multiple "Bibles", the Protestant version being the shortest. Yet we confidently support the Protestant Bible even when it quotes from works accepted in other Bibles that Protestants reject.
B
Blue155
Guest
But the varieties of chocolate doesn’t change the evidence of it being chocolate. Just like these “multiple Bibles” that you bring up, doesn’t negate or change the evidence of Christianity.