They are clues to what actually happened.
Enough to make a viable case. However, once in the courtroom, the case must be shown to be able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yep, and for most of us, that case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the point. But if you don't look at all the evidence or you throw out evidence because you don't want to consider it, they you are basing your conclusion without knowing the case. But, that is the point, isn't it? Even in my previous post, I presented evidence and why we couldn't just dismiss the evidence and you refused the evidence for no significant reason other than you wanting to.
So, let's go back and present the evidence more like a courtroom since that seems to make sense to you. We present to you, eye witness accounts, which focus on 4 different authors who were so convinced by what they saw that they all 4 wrote their own books explaining what they saw and how they made sure it wasn't a hoax. Of those 4 different people and 4 different books, the only variations are what we would expect from different perspectives of the same event.
2. we have other books that all predict or explain the event as well, iow's not only do we have eye witness accounts but we have fulfilled prophecy and character witnesses.
3. we see that the event was stunning enough to the people of the day that it became so ingrained in society and history that people for thousands of years are still talking about it and still finding a change in their lives for the positive as a result of that event that was witnessed.
4. we have the shroud of Turin, which testifies to the linen not only being of the time period in question, not only consistent with the culture of the time, but also consistent with a supernatural event that would be consistent with resurrection.
finally, we present 5. those who have put the time into exploring the evidence and objectively examine it are convinced by it in a disproportionate number of times.
So, what counter evidence do you present?
Broadly I would agree. Although I would edit the last sentence to read "Based on our observation, the viable conclusion here is that X is most likely."
okay...thought that was understood given the context, but no worries, I can buy what your selling here.
And when I've done the same thing, I come to a different conclusion....
that is cool, but you have to lay out your case if you want us to believe your open minded, not just say, I come to a different conclusion and ignore the evidence you are being presented.
There are many ways that the stories of Jesus (as recorded in the Gospels) could have been changed, exaggerated, mythologized or edited over time. This process matches other processes I have observed and studied on other occasions.
The "method" used in the bible is one of eye witness accounts as well as oral history and together they make for a very strong case. Remember my post where I talked about the children's crusades of 1212? there wasn't even as much recorded history of the events that there are for the resurrection and yet, the crusades are not questioned. So, your in court, you are proving an open mind to the topic, why would we think that the evidence in scripture is not sufficient? Why should we dismiss it? I have defended why it is viable evidence, it's up to you to present your case for why it isn't able to be presented as evidence.
as to the claim of changed, exaggerated, mythologized, or edited over time, the consistency of the accounts dismiss all of these claims as being nothing more than hand waving of the truth. IOW's there is no evidence that anything you claim here is true of the account and the authors that told of the account. If you want to make your case, then show some evidence that we can accept what your trying to lay down. And remember, in this "court of law" it isn't important whether or not you agree with what is being presented, only that you understand it. According to literary rules that are applied to all literary works, there is no evidence of change, exaggeration, mythologized, or editing over time, it is up to you to present something that would testify otherwise.
You spoke of the scientific method observing one thing and then expecting the same thing when observing it a second time. Well, here we have a multitude of stories where spiritual gurus were claimed to have been healers, miracle workers, incarnate gods, living on after death, etc. Those are the observations. Most people (including Christians) recognize these as exaggerations, mythologizations or edits on the true history. Why would Jesus be the exception?
actually the bible says that they will be there, that false teachers and even demons will copy the miracles and signs and wonders...but what is curious is why you would present them as evidence to the resurrection. They were not presented as evidence to the resurrection which you said you wanted to focus on and yet you present them as evidence against even though scripture predicts them and that even in Rev. we see that the antichrist will preform a "resurrection" of sorts.
I guess what I am saying, is why you would see a prediction in scripture fulfilled as evidence against scriptural truth rather than evidence for scriptural truth. I mean, I think prophecy is some of the weakest evidence, but it is evidence none the less, you present evidence to the truth of scripture and claim it is evidence against scripture, so you will have to connect some dots if you want to make your case.
It is like throwing a ball directly at the ground and observing it bouncing upwards in your hand every time and then claiming that this one time you bounced the ball and it shot off at a 45 degree angle instead.
huh? I don't know at this point what you don't get....from the standpoint of science, there is always doubt, from the standpoint of your argument you just bounced the ball and it responded exactly as we predicted it should but you want to pretend it bounced some different way but fail to show that it did.
Haha! When did I claim to be "enlightened"? All I've claimed is that I've done a bunch of study on the subject. I also completely confess that I haven't looked at all the evidence primarily because there is so much that it would require a lifetime of study to tackle even a small portion.
exactly the point...with so much evidence, how could you come here and say, there isn't enough evidence?
But the evidence I have seen seems to indicate that Jesus is just another ball that bounced upward.
as I previously suggested and you ignored, that is because you are looking at evidence man tells you to look at rather than evidence God says He put there for you to find. If we want to test for the truth of God, we should base our tests off of the claims of God not the claims of man who claim to know Him, which is why I will always point out what the bible says is truth, because that is the claims that God makes of Himself....or at least He claims that the bible holds the claims He makes of Himself.
All I can go off of is the evidence I have seen. The reason I opened this thread was to see more evidence, and I have been given that in the form of articles and book suggestions.
I gave it to you in the form or scripture and a consistent means of study of that scripture and you ignored me. IOW's apply the same rules of study to scripture as we do to all literary works and discover the God that you didn't know existed because you spent all your time learning about the god man said He was.
I'll also remind you that all you are going off of is the evidence you have seen. I would challenge you that you also have not seen all the evidence, seeing as you don't seem that well acquainted with all these other stories of spiritual gurus who were later exaggerated and mythologized by their followers.
wow, I addressed the ones you presented, testified to why I dismiss them, but you accuse me of not being acquainted with them....in fact, there was only one name I didn't recognize and I looked him up. That makes it sound like you are being disingenuous with us to make such a claim against me when the evidence testifies to the opposite of your claim....what would you gain from such a false claim? Is that how you treat all evidence? You throw out what doesn't fit your purpose no matter what the evidence says? This is exactly why people suspect you are not genuine, because of false accusations like this and some other things I already pointed out.
I am open to Christianity in that I read the Bible, attend church and see a lot of value in Jesus' teachings as well as lots of value in the community benefits of religion. I find that the alternative (a purely secular, non-spiritual lifestyle) is not better, but worse.
that makes you open to christianity the religion, not open to Christ the Savior, but we have talked about that.
I just don't agree with some key orthodox statements of Christianity (see the OP).
You are getting off-topic. Let me remind you again:
You said: "The events actually happened"
I said: "That's the question isn't it. Billions of people disagree with you." (as in, the primary question of this entire thread is whether the events described in the Gospels happened exactly as they are claimed to have happened. Also, billions of people are in disagreement about the historical accuracy of the Gospels and the nature of Jesus).
You then posted an article which showed that a bunch of other religions had conflicting opinions on Jesus. That is not evidence that the events actually happened as described in the Gospels. In fact, the article you posted only bolsters my point that there are billions of people with conflicting opinions about the Gospels. So my claim that "you didn't show me evidence to X" is not changing the goal post.
By posting that article, you didn't show me evidence that the events actually happened. It's okay to say: "Yes, that article was as poor example" and then we can move on...because I'm wasting my time beating this dead horse instead of addressing the other articles you posted earlier and moving the conversation forward.
more of why people don't think you are genuine and open minded in that all of this was addressed and you aren't hearing what is being said....now, I have pointed out specifics why people aren't buying what you claim, so how will you respond? Will you continue to post in a manner that allows people to think you are being less than genuine or will you start addressing what is being said with well thought out arguments and points that address the issues being presented?
Now, as to the article in question, it was one of several articles presented. It was presented to evidence your first claim that the events in scripture are not historical, and I showed you that even those people you use to suggest that the resurrection didn't happen accept that Jesus is a historical being....iow's the article evidenced exactly what I was posted to evidence, a falseness of your first claim...then, I read into your claim what you intended and presented other articles that evidence the claims related to that and you continue to ignore those articles, why? Why do your posts suggest you are afraid of dealing with the responses to your arguments?
Sorry. That was not at all my claim. Never have I suggested in this thread that Jesus was not a real historical person. Read Post #245.
Read Post #245. That is the first time I mentioned "billions of people" disagreeing with you. Then read Post #250. All you do is post an article in response. You don't even mention the Bible in that post....
I addressed the
Billy Graham article as well as the article from the
Christian Post. I don't want to repeat myself, so just read Post #251 if you want to see my comments on those articles.
Agreed.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Agreed.
From the Billy Graham article, the "historic evidence" is all taken from the Gospel accounts. If you believe that, then you are also forced to believe everything in Yogananda Paramahansa's
Autobiography of a Yogi.
no, wow....how are you open minded but can't even respond to the points presented and instead of responding to the points made, reinvent some non sense to allow you to twist what was said so you can try to flame others into a response....
Oh well, let's repeat what I actually said...you give us no reason why we should dismiss the eye witness accounts of the 4 gospel writers in 4 different books not to mention all the other biblical authors and all the various books. If you want to try to pretend your open minded when your posts show otherwise, then present arguments against why they are valid when evidence has been provided as to why they are valid...then we will move to the next evidence, don't just play games that are against the rules to play.
From the Christian Post article, the "scientific evidence" is one singular piece of cloth: the Shroud of Turin. There is much dispute about the age of the shroud, its authenticity and whether it even shows the resurrection. Even if it is authentic, it seems to just show that someone died and was wrapped in a cloth.
see above, in fact, this post is way too long of you trying to get out of the arguments you have been presented and that is why I am ignoring so much of it. When you are ready to address the arguments you have been presented, let me know. As to the shroud, it is much more and worthy of your study.
I try to use evidence as best as possible. The Holocaust is well-documented by photographs, videos, testimonies, newspapers, mass graves, still-standing concentration camps, etc. The Children's Crusade is relatively poorly documented and likely contains some mythical or apocryphal elements. The civil war is well-documented by photographs, testimonies, newspapers, historic sites, graves, etc. American Indian history is a very broad subject, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Dinosaurs are well-documented by millions of fossils. The stories of Jesus is relatively well-documented by a single source of followers who venerated and worshipped him; it is as authentic as any story about Yogananda Paramahansa, Sri Yukteswar, Sai Baba of Shirdi, the Dalai Lama, etc. It likely includes mythical or apocryphal elements.
and what? 1. Jesus is well documented by more than a single source and you have been shown this repeatedly but refuse to address it. 2. my argument against yogananda paramahansa, and all the others you presented had nothing at all to do with documentation, that is your argument. IOW's you want me to argue against a non existent argument then try to accuse me of not addressing the your argument because I point out what I really do believe...see, again, this is what makes your posts look close minded and rude...so, how about it, how about you respond to what is being said, not what you want us to say?
How am I not following the evidence?
Because the entire subject of this thread is disputing the claim. If everyone on this forum responded to a thread by just stating that the disputed claim is true, there wouldn't be much to discuss.
Can I just rephrase this to: "Most people have never looked at the evidence"
Most people, regardless of what side of the debate they fall on, have not looked much at the evidence. That's fine because many people just don't have much interest in this sort of thing.
but, you cannot use people who have not looked at the evidence as experts on what the conclusions of the evidence are, which was my point and a point that was well made and clear and a point you fail to accept as the response to your accusation. So when do you post with open minded responses?
The article you cited specifically says that most of these religions don't view Jesus as unique. He was a wise teacher, a prophet, a miracle worker, a god, an enlightened man, a holy man, a moral teacher.
None of them say he was the only true wise teacher, the most important prophet, the only miracle worker, the only god incarnate, the only enlightened man, the only holy man, the most important moral teacher.
exactly what I would expect since it wasn't presented to show most people think He was..... come on, address the points being made.
To most all other religions (except perhaps Islam), he is one among many.
You're missing my point. Why don't you believe the historical authenticity of Yogananda Paramahansa's life? After all, it is arguably better documented than Jesus' life.
okay, here you go again then can't figure out why you sound close minded....please show where I ever said, suggested, hinted or otherwise pretended to claim that Yogananda Paramahansa life was not of historical authenticity? In fact, I have said the opposite and clarified my position above but you are so busy trying to reinvent the arguments that you haven't heard what I have said. Why would an open minded seeker post falsehoods of other peoples claims?
Sorry, what test was performed?
let's keep this manageable and start with the court case in the first part of this post, then we will move on, especially since I have already given you several examples and you have ignored them all.
Admission of ignorance is not a bad thing. I'm just being honest. It was not a "confession", it was just a statement. I will look into the shroud and do some reading on it. Thanks for the suggestions.
What was the documentary you watched?
A Hindu would say that he must have been an old english poet in a past life.
What is the difference between "will", "inner being", "heart" and "mind"?
in this discussion there isn't enough difference to go into it, in other discussions we could talk about how they are different. Your having enough trouble with making them equal enough to understand the point being made.
If I was on a diet and had to "create the willpower" to continue, I would rationalize using my mind to say, "I need to lose this weight and continue this diet for reasons X, Y, Z."
What is the post #?
The point is that Salvation is a belief of the heart not the mind, it does NOT mean the mind is left out, in fact, scripture tells us to renew our minds, but it is not the same belief as a mental assent to something, which is the point.
