Mr. Aardvark

That's an assessment, not proof of the ressurection.

So a document, the book of Acts, lists the names of known cities and loacations at that time and this is proof that a dead person rose from the grave? Historical fiction writers use the names of known cities, locations, events and persons all the time and use them for the purpose of creating fiction. No one assumes on that basis that they are rendering accurate historical accounts.

.

Many religious leaders have been associated w/ miraculous claims and the susbsequent followers have claimed that they knew someone who knew someone who said that they witnessed the miracles. It's hearsay, often compounded hearsay.

Again, hearsay evidence.

Hearsay.

A conclusion drawn from hearsay.

Now this is an especially bad argument. Fervent true believers willing to die for their beliefs--throw a rock at any point in history and it will hit all kinds of examples like this and not just from Christianity.

I'm not sure what prophecy in Daniel you are referring to but the so-called prophecies that Jesus allegedly filled are laregly bunk even if one accepts that some of the claims of the NT writers were true. For example, "Out of Eygpt I have called my son"--that's an alleged fulfillment of an OT prophecy, except that the OT passage isn't in the least bit prophetic. It's a clear reference to Israel. One would have to read that passage allegorically to read it as a prophecy, a heremenutic conservative Christians don't accpet since it would mean that other passages could be read as allegories as well...like the resurrection.

Is this your evidence? Hearsay and compounded hearsay, removed by 1500 years or more of history? Surely you jest.

Look this matter is simple. It takes an extraordinary amount of evidence for someone to believe a miraculous claim and that is as it should be. I trust my mother. Now if my mother returned from a camping trip and said that the people in the tent next to her were eaten by a bear, I would think that occurence was unusual, but I wouldn't doubt her story because I KNOW from a variety of sources that such events sometimes happen and because I trust my mother. But if she returned from a camping trip and said that a nearby mountain rose up in the air and crushed the people in the tent next to her and then returned and rested in the place that it originally stood, then I would not believe my mother regardless of how much I trusted her, precisely because she claims a miracle occurred, one that doesn't accord w/ anything in my experience or the experience of anyone I know. That would be the responsible reaction.

If Jesus rose from the grave, and the NT is an accurate eyewitness account of that event and other events in Jesus' life, then that would indeed be important news. A miracle would have occuured. But we need more evidence than the testimony of someone who knew someone who said he witnessed it, a claim removed by nearly two thousand years of history. Because if that is the standard, then I'd better take seriously the claims of alleged eyewitnesses from other ancient religions and cults as well. That standard just leaves front door standing wide open and lets all the kooks and crackpots come streaming in.

Diogenes the Cynic

After reading through again, I think I may know what AChristian was trying to say about Daniel. I think he's trying to argue could not have been written in the 2nd century BCE because the LXX had already been translated and AC seems to be under the impression that Daniel was part of the original Septuagint. Daniel was added to the LXX in the Christian era, dawg.

Amaleq13

And you honestly don't think your faith affects the way you interpret the evidence?

I think, if you consider that sentence honestly, you will see that it is not sound. Since you are clearly defining an "honest evaluation" as one where "God has to help", the presence of Gods' help is clearly relevant. You've redefined the word "honest" so that only someone sharing your faith and your conclusions can qualify. That hardly seems fair, does it? I could just as easily redefine "honest" to mean "examining the evidence without faith in God" and then your examination would be found lacking. In actuality, I understand "honest", in this context, to mean that one intends to make an effort to base one's conclusion solely on the evidence regardless of whether that conclusion is preferred or inconsistent with prior held beliefs. I have no idea whether your own consideration qualifies as "honest", in this sense, but I can only assure you that I have tried and continue to try to adhere to that concept.

Since you seem to consider logic and reason at least somewhat reliable, shouldn't logic and reason suggest to you that, given we have read the same evidence and that the only apparent difference in our consideration is the presence or absence of prior faith, that our mutually exclusive conclusions are directly related to that factor?

That isn't logical. Since, by your own admission, you've only examined the evidence with faith, you really have no idea how the evidence appears when considered without faith.

aChristian

This dilutes the meaning of the word Christian. Someone who does not believe in the literal death and resurrection of Jesus is not a Christian.
Well meaning people can differ in their judgments on debatable matters, but God has said that if you seek him you will find him. He has not hidden himself so that an honest inquirer cannot find him. The Bible teaches that it is man's sin that keeps him from God. Jesus said, "This is the verdict, light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil". John 3:19

Diogenes the Cynic

This is called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It is not given to you to decide who is or is not a Christian.
This is just witnessing. There is no debatable content in it.

aChristian

I am not defining 'honest evaluation' as you say I am. I agree with your definition of 'honest'. I am just saying that you need God's help to be honest. There are actually some deep questions here that I don't know the answer to. Do people have enough of the image of God left in them to be honest without extra help from God? Whatever the answer is, I still define honest as you do here.

You are implying that once somebody believes something to be true that he cannot honestly examine evidence after he has formed that belief and come to a different conclusion. I think this just depends on whether he is honest or not, not on what he initially believes. I would hope that I would be honest enough to deny everything that I currently believe if I found evidence to indicate that I was wrong.

1veedo

Tell a Christian Scientist that.

Diogenes the Cynic

Excuse me? No I don't.
This question is gibberish. Being and honest, truthful person is in no way contingent on (or precluded by) theistic belief. If you'd like to contend otherwise, please provide evidence. Please prove that a non-theistic person cannot be honest.

aChristian

After the truth of Christianity has been established, it is found that the Bible contains many supernatural occurences. Since God could easily have told 3 different people to write the same words, it is not any less likely than that they copied one another. To determine which is the case, you need to look at any evidence you can find to see which probably happened. I don't read of any records where the writers got together or any record where one copied the other. Of course, having the same words is a point in favor of copying. I could be wrong here, maybe there was a Q document, but I doubt it. It is not a big deal in our discussion anyway I don't think.

Yea. Once you have looked at the historical records and established the fact of the resurrection, this implies that Jesus is God and knows what he is talking about. He didn't tell us he is an alien or a time traveller. He of course could be lying (a bad God), but his character as seen throughout history doesn't fit. He appears to be good and loving.

There is tons of it. Micah says the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. Isaiah says a virgin will birth the Messiah. (The rabbis translated the hebrew word almah with the greek word parthenos, virgin. Using almah in the hebrew allows the prophecy to apply to both the young woman of Isaiah's time and the virgin Mary (the sign in the height above).)
The destruction of the Assyrian army was prophesied by Isaiah.
Agabus prophesied the famine in the Roman empire.
Israel was prophesied to become a nation again in the last days. This was fulfilled in 1948.
There is also fulfilled prophesy and miracles occurring in the present day.


Read their books.

Montgomery, has 7 earned degrees including doctorates in philosohy and theology. I don't know what law degrees he has. He has also been a professor and chair of the church history department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has written about 20 books on philosophy, theology, and church history. I think you are mistaken when you say that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I think your just ignoring the clear evidence the many good historians have recognized.

Through Paul and Peter, God raised people from the dead, healed diseases, gave supernatural knowledge, etc.
In the present day there are miracles taking place. The pastor of the church where I used to go, prayed for a boy whose partially amputated finger was miraculously restored. The good Jewish doctor who had performed the amputation had the boy come back in every week for a year because he just wanted to continue to examine it. He still had the amputated portion of the finger on the first visit back after the healing. He recorded it in a medical journal. There are many other reports from honest people like this. I just happen to know someone trustworthy who was close to this one.

Daniel not only prophesied the events of world history from the time of the Babylonians to Cleopatra and beyond, but a good case can be made for the fact that he prophesied the day the Messiah would appear to Israel, Palm Sunday.

aChristian

I will when I meet one. This is the case not because I define it that way, but because God does in the Bible and he knows more about it than you or I.