Personal testimony is only the next best thing if there is nothing else to go on. Courts of law discount testimony if any other evidence crops up, because it's well known that human memory is patchy at best - we remember selectively, we embellish, we literally fabricate brand new memories without even knowing it.
Well there's to much evidence from historical sources saying the same thing. Some of it is written as in official correspondence and has no motives for promoting any agenda. In fact if anything some of it is trying to actually denounce the Christians and Christ as fools. The very fact they mention Christ and the christian movement which backs some of the things the bible says like that this Christ who they say does wonders and heals is a testimony in itself. But they dont deny it happening they just put it down to sorcery and not divinity.
There is great evidence that much of the gospels were written soon after the events and by eye witnesses or those who knew the eye witness. There was a strong tradition of oral reciting and passing on of events and it was a practice of the early believers. So it wasn't a case of it being forgotten and then people trying to recall events. The events were so significant that they were talked about a lot and they spread very fast throughout the land. The christian movement grew very fast and spread far and wide.
'Hoax' implies it was deliberate. Suppose Jesus was an eccentric, charismatic, but ultimately mortal rabbi who believed his own claims to divinity - isn't it possible he was just that convincing? All it takes is to convince a few people about your divinity, and you've got your own religion. L. Ron Hubbard did it on a bet, and now Scientology is a multibillion dollar corporation.
Could be but the ways in which he taught in parables and the manner is to authentic. It would be better to say that others made up stories than to say that Jesus was deluded. He is often saying dont tell others of what I have done and trying to humble himself. He has dealings with the local pharisees and they try to trap him. He is found guilty of no crimes. The historical writings are saying he was a good man who promoted good living and love. His followers loved him and were willing to give their lives. There was no wrong doing in his followers and they had to often hide to meet together as they were persecuted. Jesus himself comes across as a person who wasn't seeking fame or being egotistical or having any self deluded ideas. If anything he was the opposite. He made the statements about being the son of God as a straight forward thing which was really getting him in trouble as it was blasphemous in those times. He gave good reasoning for why he should be taken seriously with his connections to the Jewish law and old testament. He just made to much sense to be a deluded egocentric or someone seeking self promotion or even someone who was so unsure of himself that he was a emotional and excitable person like the ones you are trying to make him to be.
"Is popular" is not the same as "is true".
like I said he comes across as not wanting popularity and if anything is standing for truth and stating hundreds of times he is the truth and the way and the light. This would be more to do with delusion or madness than popularity.
This always seems like a strange argument for Christians to make - are you not aware of the thousands of martyrs from other religions? The self-immolating Buddhists, the suicide-bombing Muslims? If the existence of Christian martyrs proves Christianity, why can't the same be said of Islam or Buddhism?
I'm not sure about Buddhist. But taking the most famous martyrs for their cause the Muslims this is totally different. The Muslims kill others to kill themselves that is their main objective. This shows that they murder which is not only against christian belief but is actually against their own beliefs. The Christians are being asked to denounce they belief and then they are killed if they dont. In fact it is often the muslims that will kill the christians because of this. The Christians were just trying to live and practice a way of life. They were not rebelious or radical or sought to fight anyone over it. They often had to hide so they could hold church meetings. They were not looking for trouble, trouble found them because they were a threat to the Romans.
Mohammad doesn't claim to be the son of God or do miracles or bring people back from the dead. He actually acknowledges Jesus as well. If you read some of the things about Mohammad he was just a man who who was more like a great leader. But he also had done some questionable things. Where as Jesus was innocent and never sinned but he was sent to death.
To put it another way, you answer your own question: they are simply very deluded.
Well 11 of the 12 disciples were executed for their beliefs and their writings are far from being deluded. They have to much cohesion and rational thought to be deluded to the point of not realizing they are giving up their lives for a silly cause. Just the behavior of the believers in that they had to hide and the good works many done seems not a delusion but a good way of life. Like the many Christians today they show no signs of delusion any more than you or others do. They are rational and coherent in all their lives and can think and reason what they believe. They have normal lives and operate without delusion in every other part of their lives. They would have to be regarded as schizophrenic or so deluded that it would effect them as a whole ie be deluded and easily fooled in other areas of their lives.
In your own subjective opinion, of course. I rather like the sayings of Confucius.
Well not just in my opinion. Parables like the good Samaritan and the lost son are famous throughout history and the non religious world as good ways to live and good reasonable and rational thought. Thinks live love your neighbor as you love your self and the meek shall inherit the earth are famous sayings from Jesus. In fact if you read the sermon on the mount it is one of the best examples of the teachings of Jesus which gives a rational and good philosophy for life. These aren't the rantings of a ego maniac or deluded person.
By and large. But that doesn't mean he was right - as you say, he could easily have been deluded. How many religious zealots have got lost in a spiral of scriptural exegesis? How many have been so confident in their reading of scripture that they were sure the world was going to end on date X? William Miller and his 1843 prediction? Harold Camping and his 2011 prediction? These people were a) absolutely convinced of their own conclusions, and b) so charismatic that they convinced many thousands to sell their belongings and await the rapture.
No I said he would either have to be deluded or there was something to what he said. Even the non religious historians acknowledge his claims as being the son of God and that he was going around performing miracles. That was the word and this is what people were seeing and saying. So they were either all deluded or Jesus was doing some card tricks or magical tricks as people were being healed as in the blind seeing and the dead rising. This is said to be why the movement grew so fast because of the miraculous things that had happened. These things stunned people and the Christians were converting sometimes 3,000 at a time. It grew very fast that within a few hundred years it took over the roman empire and was even adopted by the state. The very one that was trying so hard to stubbed it out. So even the enemies of it were convinced.
I'm not saying this is what actually happened in 30 CE, but I'm not convinced the only explanation is that Jesus an actual deity. It's at least as probable that he was simply wrong.
Fair enough thats your opinion.
The traditions and then the documents were linked to named persons—well-known named persons—and it was the early Jewish practice to memorize sacred traditions so they could be passed on faithfully from one tradent to another. There was not a long period of transmission of these traditions, and there was often a direct link, or a close link, with eyewitnesses.
. We do not have in those Gospels “cleverly devised myths” or stories only loosely based on history, but rather eyewitness testimonies and traditions that in many cases the witnesses were prepared to die for, so profoundly did they believe them to be true.
The Gospels were written by people who were indeed in touch with vivid eyewitness testimony about events that had been seared into their memory and had left indelible impressions. As it turns out, we may know more about the historical Jesus and his first followers than modern skeptics have suggested—far more, if Bauckham is right.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses – Biblical Archaeology Society
This evidence arguably confirms that Jesus existed (Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus) and had a brother named James who was killed when Ananus was high priest (Josephus). Jesus was known to be a wonder worker (Josephus, Celsus), a wise man and a teacher (Josephus) and was regarded by his followers as divine (Pliny). He was crucified (Tacitus, Lucian, Josephus) under Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius (Tacitus, Josephus) and his crucifixion seems to have been accompanied by a very long darkness (Thallus). This crucifixion, far from squelching the movement, seems to have been a catalyst for its growth (Tacitus). By 49 CE it was large enough to have incited a riot, resulting in Claudius kicking all Jews out of Rome for awhile, thus confirming Luke’s report in Acts (Suetonius). By the early sixties CE the movement had become so widespread that Jesus’ disciples could be plausibly blamed by Nero for a city-wide fire (Tacitus). And by the turn of the century it had spread all the way to Bythnia where it was large enough to cause problems for the governor (Pliny).
All of this arguably confirms, to some extent at least, the historical veracity of the Gospels. What is perhaps even more interesting, however, is how (even apart from the Gospels) these external sources raise rather forcefully the question of how we can plausibly account for a movement arising in Palestine, within a first century Jewish context, that was centered on the faith that a recent, wonder-working, wise teacher who got crucified was actually the divine savior of the world. Saying that this movement was rooted in a legend simply re-labels the problem; it does not solve it.
If we accept the testimony from the early disciples about why they believed what they believed about Jesus, everything is explained. If we don’t accept this, however, what plausible alternative are we left with?
- See more at:
Corroborating Historical Evidence of the New Testament – ReKnew
Corroborating Historical Evidence of the New Testament – ReKnew
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm