IamMoose

Christians frequently say to me that they believe in Christianity because they have evaluated the evidence and it seems 'true' to them. A favourite thing to say is that they believe that, if the evidence for Jesus's divinity was weighed in a court of law, it would have to be found to be true. This sounds optimistic in the extreme to me! Especially as, as far as i can see, the only arguments for Jesus's divinity are to be found in the NT .. a partisan document. When I point this out, people always tell me that thousands of early Christians went to their deaths rather than deny Christianity, and people won't die for a lie (they go deaf when it is pointed out to them that people in the middle east die for a lie every day ). Anyway, what to people think .. what do you think of the arguments for Jesus's divinity or even existence? I believe the man probably existed, but you'd have to show me a whole lot more proof to make me believe that He was the Son of God (so I prolly shouldn't use a capital H, but hey, I am a stickler for these things ).

Chili

Well yes, Rev.17:6 deals with this "I saw the woman was drunk with the blood of God's holy ones and the blood of those martyred for their faith in Jesus.

Those martyred for their faith in Jesus are not God's holy ones for it is wrong to "keep the commandments of God and the faith in Jesus" (Rev.14:12) because it was for liberty that Christ freed us and "any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and have fallen from God's favor" Gal.5:4; 1-4).

So obviously, a martyr for his faith is dying for the wrong cause because you just can't be one of God's favorite to have found liberty in Christ and take up the yoke of slavery a second time for which now you are willing to die -- and the Inquisition has proven many times that they are willing to do just that.

Notice that God's holy ones are not martyrs but they died to their sin nature only after the example that Jesus gave us (see Rev.14:13 on this to make the juxtaposition clear with verse 12 that identified those who are willing to die as martyr.

Of course Jesus was real but the value of the message lies in the myth behind the story which is real or we would not be able to "pick up our cross and follow him." Our cross is our sin nature that has been identified as our earthly nature on the night it was betrayed and that is the 'holy Jesus' in us that must be crucified before Christ can be set free in us.

In a court of law they should abolish freedom of religion.

Toto

The arguments for Jesus' divinity based on the gospels are old and unconvincing to anyone who is not a committed believer.

If you are interested in rebuttals to the most common Christian apologetic arguments, I recommend The Jury Is In, a rebuttal to Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and Earl Doherty's Cahllenging the Verdict. You will find many more counters to apologetics in the Infidels Library

gregor2

Well, use of the NT, itself, in court would be problematic.

There are four major evidentiary problems with the gospels. First, documentary evidence must be authenticated by a live witness (usually the author) who can verify that the document is authentic. Second, the document must be the 'best evidence" - a genuine original (or exact copy). Third, the document must be written by one with personal knowledge. Fourth, even if admitted into evidence, a document containing statements of persons outside the courtroom contain hearsay (the document itself is hearsay, actually).

Because we don't have an authenticating witness, because the extant mss are altered from the originals, because even the purported authors had no personal knowledge, and because the gospels are chock full of hearsay, admitting the gospels into a court proceeding would be a challenge.

However, these standards are not fair to apply to any historical documents.

blt to go

No, this is the ONE thing my friends do not, under any circumstances, say to me.

See, the very basic idea of the American "court of law" is to throw two persons with diametrically opposed opinions, let them duke it out, presenting ALL the evidence in their particular favor and hope that through this process the "truth" will immerge.

So, if anyone said this to me, the question would be, "O.K., but have you thoroughly reviewed both sides of the question? Including the formation of the bible, the canon, the authors, the reliabilty, the attestation [or lack thereof] of contemporary authors, etc...?"

In other words, if they want a "court of law" then it is time for them to review ALL of the evidence. Some of the sites mentioned by Toto are a good place to start.

You will quickly find that they will not want to hear from non-christian authors. Bottom Line, they do not want to treat it like a court of law, but rather a positional brief. Very one-sided, and without any opportunity for rebuttal.

So, the next time some unsuspecting fool states this, I would respond (but sadly never get the chance), "You are right. So let's look at both sides of the argument, both pro-divinity and anti-divinity, and look at all of the evidence, just like they do in a 'court of law.' Then, you, as a juror, can make the call."

fta

Robert Blatchford made fun of this claim in God and my Neighbour (1903).

:rolling::rolling:

The Secular Web should add this book to its Historical Library, if I may make a suggestion.

SLD

Well, true enough; all historical writings are inadmissible in a court of law.

To be generous to them, even if the Gospel writers themselves were on the stand they would only have hearsay since they were not the original witnesses to the event.

But assuming that one of them was (IIRC, some xtians claim John was); there are still gross problems WRT the resurrection. Only a few saw JC after he rose from the dead - the story of the women who came to the tomb in the morning could not be told by the gospel writer; at best he'd have to state that he saw Jesus at a later time and thus did not actually witness the resurrection. But it is unclear if John himself claims to be at any actual meeting with JC. I think any of us here could cross examine in fairly well.

SLD

IamMoose

To be fair, I think Jesus was supposed to have lived among the disciples for some time after his resurrection, so, if John WAS a disciple, he could claim to be a witness.

I still don't believe it though

SLD

The problem is that John was supposedly written after 90 AD, which would be about 60 years after the event. While the disciples ages are not known, he would have had to been 80 or more by the time he wrote it. Not very many individuals back then lived till their 80's.

It's highly unlikely that the original disciples survived much beyond the 60's. What with various wars and the supposed persecutions they suffered and the general state of health at the time for poor fishermen type from the outer portions of the empire.

SLD