Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
rebutted soundly by Lee Strobel and J Warner Wallace
lol, Lee Strobel? Are you serious? He's a joke even among Christian historians.
But by all means, if you think it's been rebutted, by all means, post how it was rebutted.
The "extra biblical evidence" comes decades after the fact, and not from anyone who was on site. That's like me trying to write about some event from the 30s going on only word of mouth that's been passed on through a couple generations. That's simply not compelling evidence.
We do know of some historians who's work has survived, and lived in the area at the time of the events in question. Philo of Alexandria is one such example, he is a noted Roman Historian with ties to the Royal House of Judea and almost certainly would have been in Jerusalem at some points during the lifetime of Jesus. Yet, no mention is made of Jesus at all in his works.
That's puzzling, as even if he didn't follow Jesus, he would have certainly written about a man who lead such a popular movement. He wrote about, and we still have records of much less important local holy men or false prophets. In Jesus case, the whole town showed up to meet him, and things culminated in an illegal trial in front of the Roman Governor himself, and execution, and then he rose from the dead. No historian would have totally ignored a major incident like that.
Philo is the most notable example, however there are other contemporary historians who should have had some knowledge of Jesus if the gospel stories are true, and we have nothing more but silence from them as well.
In essence, we have some notes from historians decades after the fact, far removed from the time or place, and they usually are only relaying beliefs that Christians at the time held. It's also worth noting that even these historians were either Pagan or Jewish, so even being a couple decades removed from the events in question, they heard the stories and didn't think they were credible either, or they would have become Christians themselves.
The historians at the time had no idea of the events in question. Meaning they were either fabricated, or Jesus was such a minor figure that he wasn't noticed by any significant number of people. Even if it's option #2, that wipes out huge key chunks of the gospel narrative.
you are neatly sidestepping the whole debate and the cause of & definition of Faith = trust in the testimony of credible eyewitnesses
2 Peter 1:16
no human in history has blindly believed the claims of the Apostles about the resurrection of Jesus. No human who ever heard the claim was not initially skeptical. Every human who ever heard the claim was initially sceptical.
What many people have come to trust that Saint Peter in Saint Paul and the Apostles in the New Testament authors were trustworthy people. And that it's Less likely that they were wrong or lying then that the resurrection and supernatural miracles did not occur.
I witnessed testimony from credible believable trustworthy person. Is evidence it is accepted as direct evidence in every court of law on earth? You cannot say there is no evidence there is EXTRAORDINARY evidence given by the extraordinary transformation of the Apostles. Upon witnessing ( What they themselves came to believe was) the resurrection.
The only thing there is not is CNN, Fox News video coverage.
LOTS of humans have blindly believed the claims, including virtually every kid that goes to Sunday school. I blindly believed Jesus rose from the dead when I was 5 years old, because that's what the teacher said. Many people take those beliefs they learn in childhood and stick with them for the rest of their lives, never seriously examining them.
In my case, I started to doubt in my early teen years, and had rejected the beliefs in their entirety by my 20s when I started seriously reading up on them.
rebutted
No it isn't.
THAT'S a very good question
however, rebutted years ago by the same authors i referenced
all of the non-canonical gospels are PROVABLY late
for example, the Gospel of Thomas quotes the Diatesseron in Syriac... Same words same order
Syriac Diatesseron = 175-200ad
The Gospel of Thomas is widely dated to the first century, the view that it quotes the Diatesseron is the opinion of Nicholas Perrin, who's theory has been examined and discredited by other historians. It is far from a consensus historical view, in fact Perrin is the only person who's ever really promoted that idea.
with cause, the three synoptic gospels, which were based on the book of Mark, were circulating amongst Christians from ~60ad...
the others were largely plagiarized by much later "upstarts" like Marcion
Try again, Mark is dated to the early 70s.
yes, ones they concocted
All of the gospels are concocted, even the ones you believe.
Mohamed, allegedly a prophet, may have been influenced by those "alternative" Christianities
That's a possibility. I'm not sure how it's relevant though.
violates accepted Scripture,risen Jesus had wounds, ate meals, etc.
Violates your accepted scripture maybe, but your religious views violated their scripture. Both of you have no hard evidence to back your views in any case.
again, non canonical gospels are probably false by text critical means, text criticism, eg. Details and names not consonant with first century Judah
The canonical gospels, especially Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke have this problem too.
exactly why orthodoxy won out
Orthodoxy won out hundreds of years after the fact. It won out mainly because of marketing, luck, and oppression once it gained a position of strength. In the first and second centuries, it was just one of many minority views on Christianity.
except that orthodoxy won out, predictably
if we were both Spock Vulcan logical, this discussion would quickly boil down to either orthodox Christianity...the resurrection actually occurred
or the Islamic view, that the resurrection APPEARED to actually occur
but, if you accept that "impostor" view... Then how is it everyone on all sides were fooled?
John the beloved apostle and Mary mother of Jesus stood at the foot of the cross for hours? How is it they were fooled?
But if you say they were in on it? Then, how is it that pilot and Ananias and Caiaphas and the entire Jewish Sanhedrin. All of Jesus is enemies who wanted him crucified and also dealt with him all morning for hours on end? How is it that they were all fooled?
So if you then say that Jesus really was crucified and that an impostor took over his role AFTER the crucifixion. Then you have the same problem? How is it that the impostor? Fooled. All of the Apostles into thinking that he was really the risen Jesus, fooling them. So thoroughly that they all went to their executions, claiming that he was the real deal.
And once again if you say that they were all somehow in on the conspiracy, then what about Saint Paul. He was an ardent opponent? He was a pharisee. On the side of the Sanhedrin and they hostile Jewish authorities. But he said he saw the risen Jesus and so became a Christian.
Once again everyone on every side of the issue agreed that Jesus appeared to be risen. And the appearance of the risen Christ was so convincing that everyone went to their martyrdoms and executions for their testimony.
For 2000 years, the logic has been like this Saint Peter and Saint Paul were honest caring. Generous kind hearted men. Who always appeared to tell the truth and who devoted their lives to charity and social justice? They were activists for the poor. Their care and concern healed people. They certainly appeared to be the most trustworthy people in history.
They gave everyone their words of Honor that they had witnessed Jesus Christ crucified and then resurrected. They told everybody that they could trust their word. They gave them their word of Honor and they were executed dying for their word of Honor without changing or retracting their testimony.
So caught between a rock and a hard place caught between the improbability of a resurrection event and the improbability of Saint Peter and Saint Paul either lying or being deceptive...
for two thousand years, people have, weighing the evidence, chosen to accept the claims and testimony of Saint Peter in Saint Paul that resurrection actually occurred
that's the faith. That's the TRUSTING in What certainly seems by all appearances to be completely credible eyewitness testimony.
It is the case that people who reject the supernatural. Conclusion have been trying to figure out what "actually happened" for 2000 years. Mohammed was aware of their debates and discussions the Quran claims that "They are all without certain knowledge". Either the resurrection really occurred or everybody has been fooled the entire time. Which one?
The fact that the orthodox view won out wasn't at all predictable in the early centuries of Christianity. Had any other version won out, you'd be arguing in favour of (for example) Marcionism, and saying how predictable it was that it won out as well.
As for the examples you cited, you're relying on the stories being true. You haven't established that anyone was actually standing at the foot of any cross, or that there ever was a crucifixion. It's reasonable to believe some figures in early Christianity were real, but what was attributed to them we have very little reason to believe.
Upvote
0