Layman - you say that your faith is not that the Bible is inerrant, but then you say you believe that jesus was resurrected.

How do you know that this is not an error?
What criterion do you use to judge?
Why ought anyone accept your criterion? Is your criterion itself given Biblical sanction?
Thank you

For some reason, skeptics cannot seem to believe that one can believe that the New Testament is historically reliable, while at the same time not insisting that it is inerrant. Perhaps this is because of overexposure to so called "fundies."

There are a host of historical reasons fpr my belief, jmcanany. I believe Paul's epistles, and his testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus, accompanied by the radical transformation of his life from persecutor to believer, is supporting evidence.

I also believe that the Gospels and Acts provide strong evidence for the resurrection. Although they contain multiple and independent sources, they attest in remarkable similarity to the resurrection of Jesus. The gospels and acts also contain information embarrasing to the early church, as well as to Jesus (John's baptism of Jesus for example), while not reading back into Jesus important events in the early church (such as circumcision). I see this as a committment to passing along the original teachings and actions of Jesus.

There are many other reasons, and I would be happy to answer any other specific questions, or direct you to the scholars and resources that I have found most helpful.

And, at the certainty of inviting ridicule, I readily admit that my faith has a subjective, experiential component to it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
[b] Sure somethings could change my faith.[b]

Please give an example of "somethings" that could change your beliefs.

But not whether the angel wore a white robe or dazzaling attire. My faith actually rests to a great extent on the evidence in the New Testament.

Again, you asked for "proof" of embellishment, so I provided it. (I never said I wished to change your faith. I think that would be impossible.) Which part of the NT do you find convincing?

My faith, however, is not that the Bible is inerrant.

We agree. The JC Bible is problematic.

My faith is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Why?

The fact that Luke may have thought that dazzaling attire was more persuasive than a long white robe doesn't lead me to believe that he viewed his sources as so much historical playdough.

You have ignored the fact that the writer of Mark depicted a young man in a white robe and the writer of Luke depicted two angels in dazzling attire. You seem hell bent on ignoring fact.

And that is even assuming that they are relying on the same tradition for the description of the angel at the tomb.

The writer of Mark doesn't seem to be describing an angel. The writer of Luke describes two. Big difference! That is why I said he created fiction.

rodahi

Did he claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events of the Gulf War?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Which statement did I ignore?

I don't believe the absurdities in the JC Bible for the same reason you don't believe in tooth fairies. No one is accusing you having presuppositions about the existence of tooth fairies. Why accuse others of this simply because they would like more than faith?

Let me put it as simple as possible for you.

Condescension does not add anything to your argument or commentary. You may think it is cute, but no one else does.

I stated that I would be skeptical, but if the situation I outlined had followed up my neighbor's claim, then I would investigate. That situation, indepenent attestation, embarrasing claims, perseverance in claims despite persecution, is comparable to the claims of the New Testament.

We know what you would investigate, but what would it take for you to begin believing in tooth fairies?

I would only add that I find the Anthropic Principle to be evidence for the existence of a god, or at least the possibility for the existence of a god.

Fortunately, not everyone has a need to find "god" in the universe. Thousands of scientists do not see any evidence of anything even hinting at the supernatural.

rodahi

No, I think it's a way of saying that there are a lot of miraculous claims out there.

So why should your miraculous claims stand out as being particularly noteworthy, or deserving of belief?

rodahi,

I disagree. Mark is clearly describing an angel. I think New Testament scholars are fairly unanimous about Mark's intent on this one.

As for my belief in the resurrection:

Taken as a whole and in the context of the times, there is a fair amount of evidence to support a belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

We have multiple and independent attestations to that effect (Paul, Mark, M, L, and John), despite the dissimilarity of the resurrection from Jewish messianic expectations.

The transformation of the followers of Jesus from a defeated religous sect into an aggressive and evangelistic multicultural religious movement. All other examples of failed or killed Jewish messiahs lead to the disbanding of the group. Indeed, by all accounts Christianity was headed in that direction. Until the resurrection. In the face of persecution no less.

The testimony and transformation of Paul. Paul, originally a persecutor of Christians, suddely claims that Jesus appeared to him, and then departs from his former life and completely changes his life. In the face of heavy persecution no less.

James, the brother of Jesus, although originally opposed to Jesus' ministry, suddenly changes his life and becomes the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem, after the resurrection. He also faced persecution, and ultimately death for his change of heart.

These are off the top of my head. Obviously this is a big topic. And I have excluded my own subjective experiences as support because I have doubts as to their persuasive value.

No. That is my point. Why do you ask?

How does this provide a parallel to the Bible? It is full of miraculous claims, so the phrase "not one who normally made up these kinds of claims" is not tangent.

Again where is the parallel?
Where are your four or five independent witnesses who can testify to the miraculous claims of the Bible?

Again, where is the parallel with the Bible?

Again, where's the parallel here?

Because I wonder why you offered him as evidence, since he was not, in fact, an eyewitness.

Reporting an eyewitness account is not the same, NEVER the same, as being an eyewitness. Police depts and social scientists will tell you that human memory is an extremely flexible thing. That is why eyewitness testimony is so valuable, but even then it is not totally foolproof.

Adding another layer of indirection adds another layer of uncertainty. By that I mean, X saw it, then told Y, who told Z and then Z wrote it down.