Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ

[DunnySaze]

Yes, and you're sidetracking yet again. You haven't disproved the historicity of Jesus Christ.

I believe you're the one who is supposed to be supporting the historicity of Christ. And since you are using scripture itself as evidence, I think the point that the Mormon scripture likewise can be used thusly is a valid one.

Second, the definition of “Christianity” is a clear rebuttal to your claim.

That a single definition can be given for Christianity does not negate the possiblility that there are many "brands" of Christianity. Some with mutually exclusive doctrine. We can also give a single define for "beer", but that doesn't negate the fact there are many different brands of beer.

The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.

Is this correct? According to Luke 1:1-4, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnessess and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it semed good also to me to write an orderly account to you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The writer of Luke is clearly telling us that he personally wasn't a witness, but rather he had investigated things and believes those who were the witnessess.

The title of the book.

That the title of the book was Luke (or John) doesn't necessarily mean this is the name of the author. The question was where in the book does the author identify himself.

I cite the following to demonstrate Paul's recount of the historical event of the resurrection -- and here you go sidetracking again.

I think the point is that if we accept the Gospels as accurate historical accounts, then by what objective standard should we exclude the BoM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony?

Eyewitness testimony is a “big deal.” By your rationale, then, everyone who swears to tell the truth in a court of law “are more likely lying or being deceived.” Your assertion is nonsense.

Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

[John Powell]

TOPHET:
This post is a continuation of a discussion first begun on the thread, "Questionable Prophecies by Joseph Smith", which is more appropriate here.

POWELL:
Nice try, Tophet, but the forum you posted this in, Comparative Religions 101, is for theists only. I've therefore posted my reply in the Apologetics 301 section under the thread name "Tophet's historical evidence of Jesus Christ."

I welcome our continued discussion there.

John Powell

[Lazy Agnostic]

Please read the book The Case for Christ .

The author was an atheist trying to prove Christianity wrong and he ended up being saved do to his research.

Well, the author made a poor skeptic's advocate. He allowed the thelogians he interviewed to get away with responses a knowledgeable skeptic wouldn't have.

See JPHolding's refutation of Paul Jacobsen's critique and an on-going dialogue between the two: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...2&page=1&pp=16

[Apologia Xristou]

I believe you're the one who is supposed to be supporting the historicity of Christ. And since you are using scripture itself as evidence, I think the point that the Mormon scripture likewise can be used thusly is a valid one.



That a single definition can be given for Christianity does not negate the possiblility that there are many "brands" of Christianity. Some with mutually exclusive doctrine. We can also give a single define for "beer", but that doesn't negate the fact there are many different brands of beer.




Is this correct? According to Luke 1:1-4, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnessess and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it semed good also to me to write an orderly account to you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The writer of Luke is clearly telling us that he personally wasn't a witness, but rather he had investigated things and believes those who were the witnessess.






I think the point is that if we accept the Gospels as accurate historical accounts, then by what objective standard should we exclude the BoM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony?




Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

Comparing different brands of beer and with different "brands" of Christianity is logically comparing apples with oranges. Truth by its very nature is narrow, and Christianity's central doctrines claim to be true. Therefore, only the "brands" of Christianity which align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ can be true. All other "brands" must be false.


Luke never claims to have been an eyewitness.However, the fact that Luke had talked to many eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of Luke's case.

The eary church father verified the authorship of each of the books, and all maintain the books were written by the author, whose name the book is entitled with.


Well, honestly, there are many objective standards by which we should exclude the BOM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony. For one example, unlike the gospels, Luke's especially, archaeology has never confirmed anything unique to the Book of Mormon, specifically evidence of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon.


All eleven disciples were intentionally lying/having false memories? What about the five hundred people Jesus appeared to after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6)? Jesus Himself assured His disciples that the Holy Spirit would remind them of everything that occurred. John 14:26 states "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

[Apologia Xristou]

One last thought concerning the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, did not claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events described in the Book of Mormon.

[DunnySaze]

Comparing different brands of beer and with different "brands" of Christianity is logically comparing apples with oranges. Truth by its very nature is narrow, and Christianity's central doctrines claim to be true. Therefore, only the "brands" of Christianity which align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ can be true. All other "brands" must be false.

Fine. Then which ones are true?

Luke never claims to have been an eyewitness.However, the fact that Luke had talked to many eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of Luke's case.

The original poster claimed the authors of the gospels were eyewitnessess. My point was, and you agree, that this is incorrect.

The eary church father verified the authorship of each of the books, and all maintain the books were written by the author, whose name the book is entitled with.

So these are the authors as accepted by tradition?

Well, honestly, there are many objective standards by which we should exclude the BOM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony. For one example, unlike the gospels, Luke's especially, archaeology has never confirmed anything unique to the Book of Mormon, specifically evidence of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

The mention of real persons, places or events does not mean necessarily prove the document accurate. There are many fictional accounts today that mention real people, places and events. I'm not saying the Bible is fictional. I'm just saying this does not prove it isn't.

All eleven disciples were intentionally lying/having false memories? What about the five hundred people Jesus appeared to after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6)? Jesus Himself assured His disciples that the Holy Spirit would remind them of everything that occurred. John 14:26 states "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

You can't use the document as it's own verification. And I was talking about the problem of accepting eyewitness testimony in general, as the poster was claiming such testimony is a "big deal" and used as evidence that testimony used in courts today. I was pointing out that such testimony is hardly problem free.

[Apologia Xristou]

Comparing different brands of beer and with different "brands" of Christianity is logically comparing apples with oranges. Truth by its very nature is narrow, and Christianity's central doctrines claim to be true. Therefore, only the "brands" of Christianity which align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ can be true. All other "brands" must be false. Fine. Then which ones are true?

The ones that align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ.

The original poster claimed the authors of the gospels were eyewitnessess. My point was, and you agree, that this is incorrect.

Not really. The original poster claimed: “The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.” The individuals Luke obtained information from were indeed people living at the time of the events themselves.

So these are the authors as accepted by tradition?

These were the authors accepted by the early church historians.

The mention of real persons, places or events does not mean necessarily prove the document accurate. There are many fictional accounts today that mention real people, places and events. I'm not saying the Bible is fictional. I'm just saying this does not prove it isn't.

I will agree with you to an extent when you say the mention of real persons, places or events does not necessarily prove the document to be accurate. However, the confirmation of historical figures, places, and events does add credibility to a document’s awareness of history. Also, the key difference between the fictionaly accounts today that mention real people, places, and events, and the historical accounts presented in the gospels, is that unlike the gospels, fictional accounts are not designed to persuade people that all of their contents are true. The author of the Gospel of John states: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31). Furthermore, unlike the the authors of fictional accounts, the authors of the gospels had such a high degree of confidence that what they were writing was true, that they were willing to die for the contents of their documents.

You can't use the document as it's own verification.

I am actually using many different documents to accomadate the information contained in each. Paul’s letter to the Corinthains is considered by scholars to be a separate, earlier, document in relation to the documents known as the gospels.

And I was talking about the problem of accepting eyewitness testimony in general, as the poster was claiming such testimony is a "big deal" and used as evidence that testimony used in courts today. I was pointing out that such testimony is hardly problem free.

My point was that in the case of the gospels, the general problems associated with witness testimony would not be nearly as major, as other eye witness accounts, because God provided Jesus’ disciples with a supernatural method of remembering details. Also, while eye witness testimony in general is hardly problem free, the entire purpose of having witness testimony is to obtain the overall picture of how an incident or incidents occurred. Thus, one can reasonably reconstruct scenarios based on witness testimonies, even if they are not Divinely guided.

[Minnesota]

I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source.

[Tophet]

The original poster claimed the authors of the gospels were eyewitnessess. My point was, and you agree, that this is incorrect.


Not really. The original poster claimed: “The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.” The individuals Luke obtained information from were indeed people living at the time of the events themselves.

Thank you, clwinche.

I would add that Luke indeed was an eyewitness in his travels with Paul. Paul also verifies this in Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 1:24.

Also noteworthy is that Paul considers Luke's gospel to be Scripture, side by side with a verse from Deuteronomy:

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,"[Deuteronomy 25:4] and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."[ Luke 10:7]

[jason]

I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source.

Then why bother repeating such a rumor ?

Rather convenient and if true no doubt would have been touted long and loud by those who wrote critiques no doubt.

Jason

[Tophet]

I believe you're the one who is supposed to be supporting the historicity of Christ.

Check out the earlier posts in this thread, and the corresponding links.
To which I would add:

Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? by Jimmy Williams
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part One
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...e/EC0802W2.htm

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Two
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...e/EC0902W2.htm

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Three
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...e/EC1002W2.htm

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Four
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Article...e/EC1102W2.htm

Textual Trysts: The Textual Reliability of the New Testament
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_01.html

Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

That's a valid observation. So how do we know whether their testimony was reliable? By cross examination. By people with the means, motive and opportunity to refute that testimony, if it was erroneous.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester:

"The earliest preachers of the gospel know the value of … first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.

"And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as further corrective."

– F. F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, IL 60515: Inter-Varsity Press, 1964, pp. 33, 44-46.

Accurately stated, Christianity exists because of an actual, historical event: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We know this event happened because of the people who witnessed it.

At the time the books of The Bible were written and circulated, there were people who had the means, motive and opportunity to refute them. One such man was King Herod Agrippa II, who ruled territory north and northeast of the Sea of Galilee and over some cities in Perea.

Of Herod Agrippa II, Encyclopedia Britannica notes that he was born AD 27, and died AD 93, meaning he was alive during the time the New Testament documents were written and circulated throughout the region.

The Britannica notes that Agrippa II was “king of Chalcis in southern Lebanon from AD 50 and tetrarch of Batanaea and Trachonitis in south Syria from AD 53, who unsuccessfully mediated with the rebels in the Jewish Revolt of AD 66–70. He was a great-grandson of Herod I the Great.

“Agrippa II was raised and educated at the imperial court in Rome. Because of his youth at the death of his father, Agrippa I, in 44, the emperor Claudius returned Judaea to the status of a province. The young prince, however, took an interest in the welfare of the Jews and helped secure them an edict of moderation. In 48 he received authority over temple affairs in Jerusalem. Two years later he became king of Chalcis, and in 53 he exchanged this land for Philip the Tetrarch's former holdings. Nero, the new emperor, in 54 added territory near the Sea of Galilee to Agrippa's realm. As his father had been, Agrippa II was an ardent collaborator with Rome and did all in his power to prevent the rupture between Rome and Jewry, but in vain.

“Between 52 and 60, he appointed several high priests and earned the enmity of the conflicting parties. Though he supported the rights of the Jews at Alexandria, who faced trouble from the Hellenized populace, he avoided
politics in Judaea, where the Zealots, a terrorist group, were active. In 60, when St. Paul was arrested, the procurator consulted Agrippa concerning the Apostle's case; the Tetrarch found him innocent.”

According to Luke's account in Acts 26, Paul tells Agrippa, "you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies" (verse 3), recalls Christ's resurrection from the dead as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies (verses 21-22) and tells Agrippa, "The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do." (verses 26-27)

Wow. Pretty heavy statements to use in addressing a king. Had Paul spoken falsely, the book of Acts would have had a different ending (and beginning, for that matter). Instead of refuting Paul, Agrippa says, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" (verse 28).

Paul's reply (verse 28): "Short time or long -- I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

Agrippa later tells Governor Festus (verse 32): "This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." Would Agrippa had said that if Paul was lying in his testimony?

This was an eyewitness account from the physician Luke, who recorded these events in the book of Acts. In Acts 12:23, Luke even records that Agrippa's father was consumed by worms because he had blasphemed against God (in A.D. 44, when Agrippa II was 17 years old). Had Luke been in error, King Agrippa had the means, motive, and opportunity to squelch this document as copies circulated throughout the region, or to imprison Luke and Paul for false testimony. Indeed, Agrippa had the means, motive and opportunity to stop the entire New Testiment, written and circulating within his kingdom, within his lifetime. But he did not/could not refute the eyewitness accounts.

I highly recommend the following essay by legal authority Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, located here:

http://members.surfeu.fi/foragnostics/sgtestimony.htm

[djconklin]

Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

While the above may be theoretically true one must ask what is the probability?

See Bailey, Kenneth E. "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," Asia Journal of Theology (Singapore) 5/1 (1991): 34-54 for insights as to how things were done in those days and ages and still were almost two thousand years later in that culture -- not ours.

[apologetics]

I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source.

I can only say.....prove it.

However, there are many other atheists-turned-Christians. Two of the more prominent are Frank Morison, author of Who moved the Stone and the most prominent, Josh McDowell, author of The Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volumes 1 and 2, among many other books. McDowell's books are much more in depth then Strobel's. Why would Strobel need to make up a story to sell books when there were many more apologetics books written before his by authors who never claimed atheists beliefs, but whose books have also sold very well?

But, I'm sure that infedels.org or whatever other atheist website you claim to have found this on is a very reputable source....

[Minnesota]

ME: " I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source."

Then why bother repeating such a rumor ?

Because I remember that the piece was pretty convincing. It went into specifics. Rumors are not, by definition, necessarily wrong. But, mere rumor or absolute truth, I think it bears notice.

I can only say.....prove it.

It's not that important. So, even if I could, I really doubt that I'd bother.

[jason]

Because I remember that the piece was pretty convincing. It went into specifics. Rumors are not, by definition, necessarily wrong. But, mere rumor or absolute truth, I think it bears notice.

It's not that important. So, even if I could, I really doubt that I'd bother.

So you just offered an unsubstantiated slur against a christian apologist ?

Nice ...

Jason