Odemus

How about the entire thing completely made up evidenced by the fact that angels don't appear to people, men aren't raised from the dead, and no one verifiably witnesses miracles happening today?

Oh, no. It makes much more sense to take these accounts as literal historical fact for no other reason than it makes us feel good to believe in them.

Diogenes the Cynic

It says that Jesus walked a "stone's throw" AWAY from them before he prayed, so how could they have heard it? Where does the text SAY that any of them heard it?
No. Not if he WAS the Father. Why would he pray to himself. And how could the Son and the father have different wills?

RGD

There's also that little conversation Jesus had with Pilate... that we've no eyewitnesses to, either.

Simple: God suffers from multiple-personality disorder (which would, you must admit, explain so many things! :devil3: )

RED DAVE

From Patriot7:
Ahhhhhhh!

Okay, but here's the problem: what is your criterion for determining correspondence?

For instance, you wrote,
Obvious on the basis of what? On the basis of several accounts written decades after the event by people who weren't there and quite likely did not speak the language of the people who were? This is piss-poor evidence.

Sheer conjecture on your part. For all you know, he was praying to find a john before he had to take a leak in public.

The whole point of a correspondence theory or truth is wrapped around evidence criteria. Yours are sadly deficient.

RED DAVE

Patriot7

That is my favorite quote from Mr. Sagan. I happen to think it's a very reasonable thing to say. But it brings to mind another question - what would you consider extraordinary evidence of the resurrection? A world religion spawned from the death of a poor, Jewish carpenter, murdered by His own people? The martyr deaths of thousands of people in the first few centuries for their faith in this Man? The Roman government adopting the Christian religion as the official religion of the land 300 hundred years after they executed this Man? Billions of believers worldwide since His death and Resurrection?

Or did you have in mind something like a TV film of the actual events? To me that would be extraordinary evidence indeed! I'm not trying to be cheeky here! It seems to me that what we've been given to examine is what we've got. As this thread is about the bible, I'll limit my reply, but at your disposal, at our time in history is an incredible amount of empirical and rational evidence for the existence of a personal God. If you're asking me for proof, I will promise you I have none. This idea that we must have bombproof certainty to every belief we hold (regarding anything) is just ridiculous.

I honestly believe that there have been many more response here by those who are more certain in their belief that God does not exist then I have in my belief that He does. And that's fine. I just don't think reality arranges itself as nicely as that. The only belief I hold right this minute, with the kind of "bombproof" certainty you seem to be demanding is that I am typing this reply. For everything else, I think reason, logic and rational inquiry with solid arguments are required. Entrenching ourselves in a worldview that a priori eliminates a supernatural reality and appealing to the "consensus of scholars" without reference to defend that worldview does not qualify.

Patriot7

On the evidence we have Big Red Dave! Do you have another ancient document that claims Christ was somewhere else having tea with Pilate at that sametime? Please produce it!

Why should I believe your theory of the events of ancient history over those who where there? You don't expect me to accept your opinion on faith do you?:banghead:

Amaleq13

Right and that is called second-hand testimony:

second-hand:
1)Previously used by another; not new.
2)Dealing in previously used merchandise.
3)Obtained, derived, or borrowed from another; not original.

and that is quite different from eyewitness testimony:

eyewitness:
A person who has seen someone or something and can bear witness to the fact.

If you spend even a fraction of a second thinking about it, the author of Luke is quite explicitly denying that he can be considered an "eyewitness" and simple logic should inform you that no one but an eyewitness can write an eyewitness account.

No, that is how dictionaries define the words.

Unless you consider ignoring the dictionary definitions of words a "way to look at it", it is the only way.

Applying accurate definitions of words in understanding a statement is not "begging the question".

Patriot7

:huh:

I'm not arguing that big fella. If you spend even a fraction of a second thinking about it Luke is quite explicit that we can consider his accounting of these events as a statement from eyewitnesses. Big difference there. Luke is not the eyewitness. The accounts given are from eyewitnesses.

Example - you are in an auto accident and a police officer records a statement from an eyewitnesses. The police officer did not witness the accident, yet we have a record of eyewitness testimony.

Diogenes the Cynic

What evidence would that be?
Yet another strawman.

John123

quote :The purpose of isnad is the disclosure of the source of information. In
the final stage, the source must lead to the person who had direct contact
with the highest authority to whom the statement belonged. The difference between the assessment of Islamic literature and Biblical literature is like the difference between night and day. In Islamic literature,the disclosure of sources is akin to the law of witnesses. The witnesses are examined according to their moral uprightness and chronology. If one applies this methodology to Biblical literature, not a single sentence could be proven to be authentic due to the absence of disclosure with regard to the source of information.


do you have anything like this for Luke? what about the names of the witnesses that luke got his accountfrom?