Toto

Mr. A:

I think Amaleq13 was confusing "aChristian" with you.

This thread has several different sub-discussions going on at the same time.

Skeptical

aChristian,

Actually, your conclusion is quite simply false even granting all your assumptions/premises. Your argument is essentially:

1) Eyewitnesses wrote the accounts of the NT. (they didn't, but let's assume they did)

2) The Eyewitnesses can be shown to be honest. (they can't, since we don't know who the "eyewitnesses" were and even if we did we have no evidence outside the NT as to whether they were honest or not, but let's assume we know them and they are honest)

3) Therefore, anything they said/wrote can be believed, no matter how fantastical or outside of normal experience. (please note the last part of the sentence)

Honestly, the flaw in this argument should be obvious. Implicit is your assumption is that humans are infallible if they are honest, that they only way that a mistake could be made is intentionally. i.e. if the "eyewitnesses" were "bad" or liars. It should be obvious from a moments reflection that this is not true.

Humans are prone to errors of all kinds all the time. For example, it is a well known fact that the least reliable source of information in a courtroom is an eyewitness. They are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. Many an eyewitness has sworn in court and believed with all their being they were right, only to be shown to have identified the wrong person later. (DNA evidence is a wonderful thing)

If the standard you assert were to be followed, any tale, no matter how fanciful and farfetched, should be believed because an honest person says they saw it. Of course, mundane assertions should most likely be believed by these terms. If someone says they saw a Ford bronco on the street, there's no inherent reason to doubt they did because we know that Ford broncos are on the street all the time. However, if someone says they saw a flying bronco horse on the street, now we have a reason to doubt they are right, no matter how much they believe it or how honest they are since none of us has ever seen a real flying bronco horse. This is just plain common sense.

Have you done any research into alien abductions? Thousands of apparently trustworthy people claim they were abducted by aliens, some of them have scars. They pass polygraphs and they tell the same story under hypnosis. They obviously _believe_ these stories even though in the decades since these stories have been out no single piece of physical evidence has ever emerged. By your standard, every one of these stories should be believed as long as the person is honest. Actually, these stories are much more to be believed than the NT because we can actually talk to these people and have ways to actually test whether they believe they are telling the truth, unlike the "eyewitnesses" of the NT.

Seriously, do you actually think that your argument makes sense? I realize that you probably read this in Lee Strobels book or some other apologetic work, but come on, can you not see why this is a terrible argument?

Amaleq13

Mr. Aardvark,

Toto is correct. Sorry about the mistaken identity.

Mr. Aardvark

Not a problem.

Rick Sumner

You might want to re-read your link.

"Finally, it should be noted that it is not irrelevant to cite an authority to support a claim one is not competent to judge. However, in such cases the authority must be speaking in his or her own field of expertise and the claim should be one that other experts in the field do not generally consider to be controversial."

Despite the loud protestations of many here to the contrary, and despite my own conviction that it shouldn't be true, it is nonetheless accurate to suggest that there is no controversy among academia at large on the historicity of Jesus. As has been suggested earlier in this thread, it is taken as axiomatic. The vast majority of other experts in the field do not consider it remotely controversial.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aChristian

The argument is logical and sensible. People can make mistakes, but not the type the apostles would have to make and still be honest. I agree that when a claim to a miracle is made, you want to check it out thoroughly before you believe it, but after you have done so, it the evidence warrants it, the logical thing to do is to believe it. The disciples lived with Jesus for 3 years, saw him perform many miracles, saw him crucified, buried him, saw him alive three days later, ate with him multiple times after this for a period of 40 days, and saw him ascend into heaven. There is no way they can be honestly mistaken about all of this. They are either all lying, all nuts having the same hallucination over a long period of time ( 40 days for the resurrection, 3 years for the miracles in during his lifetime), or they are telling the truth. I think the first two options are untenable from the historical records, but that the last is supported by the history written by the people who were there. Many of these people died for their belief that their eyes were not deceiving them.

aChristian

I don't think that you have to assume the NT is reliable, I think that you can prove it from the historical evidence. I think you can establish from the writings of ancient historians whom are found to be good reporters of history, for example Eusebius, and the many church fathers, that the disciples lived and died for their belief that they lived with the Messiah and saw him do miracles, rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven. You also have many prophecies fulfilled to bolster your case. After you have established the resurrection, you would be wise to listen to what Jesus says about God since he said that he was God and would rise from the dead to prove it. No one else has the same validated credentials when speaking about God.

Diogenes the Cynic

You have yet to produce any evidence.
What is your basis for making these fantastic assertions?
Excuse me? They are not "telling" anything. Let me say this one more time. There is no eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
You have been reading Strobel! You're spouting an apostolic variation of the trilemma. It's a fallacy anyway but in this case it's not even applicable since there aren't any witnesses to evaluate.

aChristian

I don't think you have to believe it before you prove it. I think you can start with an open mind and let the evidence lead you. If you are just honest with the evidence you will come to the conclusion that Christianity is true. The reason for this is that it is true, so of course if you just honestly follow the evidence, you will be lead to the truth. Yes, you could make a mistake, but because God loves us, he hasn't made himself hard to find. If we honestly seek the truth, we will find Him, the God of the Bible. There are several people I can think of who have started out trying to disprove Christianity and been converted by the evidence.

Rick Sumner

That miracles are impossible is a tautology.

1) A miracle is, by definition, an event that defies natural law.

2) Nothing can defy natural law.

3) Therefore miracles do not occur.

Or, to quote Cicero,

Miracles are, by definition, impossible, supernatural events. There is no logical basis for accepting them.

Regards,
Rick Sumner