redlaw

Case for Faith:

1.When the Gospels were written, many in the church could remember
what Jesus actually said and did.
2.The early church consisted mainly of people steeped in Jewish tradition.
3.The early church was severely persecuted.
4.Believers were scattered throughout the empire at an early date.
5.Rather than renounce their faith, many leaders of the early church
accepted suffering and martyrdom.

Sounds like a pretty good case to me, remeber circumstantial evidence is as legitimate as direct through the eyes of the law.


Here's what Greenleaf said:http://www.newhope.net.nz/testimony_...elists_exa.htm

Sue Sponte

The objection to your evidence is GRANTED.

Case dismissed.

Llyricist

I prophesise a move to BC&H, but in the meantime:

This is not evidence, this is an assertion that requires evidence....got any?

WHICH early church? The Corinthians? The Gnostics? The Ebionites? Or which of the dozens of others? And what would this be evidence for exactly?

How early? and how severely? And again, what is this evidence FOR? The early Mormons were severely persecuted too.

So? again, what would this be evidence for? how early is early? Quicker than Scientology has spread?

This is not evidence, this is an assertion that requires evidence....got any? and again, what would this be evidence for?
A case for what?

Happy Wonderer

Not exactly a political discussion.

1. If they are uncorrupted, why are there so many different versions of them?
2. Even if we had the original text, we would not know if we are interpreting it correctly since we do not know much of the culture or slang of 2000 years ago.
3. Even if we had the text and knew what it really meant, that says nothing to its veracity. Why would these magical books be true and not the other books that contradict them?
4. Making an argument with a magical assumption (uncorrupted text over 2000 years) to prove magic is circular.

hw

Killer Mike

In a court of law none of this would even be admissable. Its hearsay at best. The Gospels were written at least 40 years after the death Of Jesus by unknown writers. They were later named Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John by the church in the 2nd century AD.

Its like taking stories about Santa Clause and saying we have eyewitness testimony that he really exists and has flying raindeer because of all the people who have "seen" him in Santa Clause stories :Cheeky:

jayh

Probably not. There is no evidence that the written gospels existed anywhere near the alleged time of Jesus. There were also a number of additional contradictory (of course the 4 we have also contradict) gospels, it wasn't untill a couple of centuries later that the dominant sect (Catholic)selected the ones they wanted about 397CE



...and that proves?????

.... and that proves???? (many fringe religions are persecuted)
.... and that proves????

5.Rather than renounce their faith, many leaders of the early church
accepted suffering and martyrdom.

.... and that proves???? (just like many fringe religions)

There are religions throughout the world that could meet these conditions. Are they all true?

animus

As my first witness(es), I'd like to call God and/or Jesus to the stand. In the event neither one of them shows up for their court date, the case will be dismissed.

Diogenes the Cynic

False. The Gospels were written (at the earliest) between 70-100 CE in an era when few people lived past 50. More significantly, they were written for an audience outside Palestine who were witnesses of nothing and who had no ability whatsoever to verify anything. The chances of running into someone who had been a witness of a hypothetical historical Jesus were remote at best, but even if some creaky old survivor of the Roman destruction of Jersusalem had managed to make his way into a meeting of obscure proto-Christian cultists reading Mark or Matthew. what was he going to say? That he never saw Jesus come back from the dead? This old chestnut that the Roman Empire was just crawling with "witnesses" who surely would have refuted all Christian claims about Jesus is one of the most ridiculous apologist arguments in existence. And please don't give me any jive about an empty tomb or tell me these ubiquitous "witnesses" would have just been waiting to point out where the body was buried. The Empty Tomb is probably a Markan invention, and there is simply no reason to believe that Joe Witness, who had no reason whatever to care, would have known what happened to the body of some (in the witness's mind) nutball preacher who got himself crucified 50 years before?
Even if someone HAD known of a tomb. there would have been no way for those early converts in Asia Minor or in Rome to go and see it for themselves. Jerusalem had been destroyed, and anyway, what would they have even seen? A tomb with a body in it? A bone box? What possible means could they have used to identify the remains?

Moreover, why on earth should we assume that a surviving witness (of what, exactly, I'm still not sure) would be listened to at all? Hpw do you know someone didm't refute the Gospels? Why would there be a record of it? Are we supposed to believe that the entire movement of early christianity would have come to a halt because some old codger said he never saw a resurrection? Can you see how absurd that is? Since when have religious people ever responded even to hard facts and evidence, much less the protestations of a single naysayer? There are millions of people who believe in creationism. Do you think people were any less credulous or any more empirical 2000 years ago?
Dubious. The movement pretty much failed among Jews. It succeeded mostly among Gentiles, partially because they were not steeped in Jewish tradition and were not able to recognize the blatant manipulations and misrepresentations of Jewish Scripture and Messianic expectation.

It's also irrelevant. How would it prove anything even if true?
What do you mean by "early?" There is certainly no historical evidence that this happened to contemporaries or direct followers of a Historical Jesus. And like your second point, this is also irrelevant. Lots of religious groups have been persecuted. That doesn't make them true.
What is your evidence for this and how is it relevant?
There isn't a shred of historical evidence for this and it wouldn't prove anything even if it was true.
In that case, i've got some land in Florida you might be interested in.
Nothing on your list constitutes circumstancial evidence. It's just a list of claims which are not only dubious and completely unsupported. but which would not constitute persuasive evidence of anything anyway. I'm not even sure what you're hoping to prove. You titled your OP, "Case for faith" but that's rather vague. Your list is standard boilerplate "evidence" for the resurrection but as you can (hopefully) now see, it's incredibly weak.

gregor

Hello redlaw? helllloooooowwww?


Reeeeeedddddd laaaaaaawwww

Has there been a rapture and I missed it????

Celine

I have a new bumper sticker I really like, and it causes all kinds of furrowed brows among the Rubery, whenever I happen to glance in the rearview mirror:
COME THE RAPTURE
CAN I HAVE YOUR CAR?