Goliath

*shrug* Okay..so be it. I can't understand why you would celebrate making such an obvious observation, though. After all, it's not as though you've just proven Gauss' Conjecture or anything.

Sincerely,

Goliath

not a theist

Yes, it does. You are claiming that they are eyewitnesses. It is up to you to prove it. The fact that many academic professionals believe that they are not eyewitness accounts demonstrates that it is not obvious that they are eyewitness accounts. Since it is not obvious, you can't expect people to just accept your mere assertion that they are; rather, you must demonstrate that they are.

Furthermore, and this seems to confuse many Christians, showing that they could be eyewitness accounts is not sufficient for an argument such as yours. The structure of your argument in appealing to them as reliable eyewitness testimony demands that you show that the degree of likelihood that they are by eyewitnesses is very high.

Actually, not all do. Many are Christians. But that is beside the point.

You claim these accounts as eyewitness testimony. That is a highly questionable claim. You must establish the truth of your claim. If you wish to use the Bible as support for your argument, you must first establish that it is a reliable source. You claim it has eyewitness testimony. That claim is not self-evident. Since it is not, you must establish that the testimony is indeed eyewitness testimony. Many educated and informed individuals think otherwise. Feel free to show why they are wrong.

Or am I supposed to just take your word that they are eyewitness testimony?

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

It was simply an attempt to lighten things up. I sincerely apologize if it offended you. Obviously, if I believe Christianity to be true, I must believe that all other faith systems are false. I must believe this because Christ said, "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but through me." However, there are too many for me to be personally acquainted with all of them. Vedas is not one I am acquainted with.

Regards,

Finch

Mageth

The evidence of the witnesses contained in the NT is evidence that at least one man (2 if you include Lazarus) rose from the dead. You just chose to ignore that evidence because you rule out the supernatural a priori.

IMO, the NT is evidence only that somebody wrote about one or more men that allegedly rose from the dead.

I've read reports about Las Vegas magic shows; never seen one myself. They report that a magician can saw a woman in half and voila! she appears again perfectly whole! Do I believe what I read, that the magician really sawed the woman in half and she appeared again whole? No, of course not, because I know that such a thing is not possible barring a supernatural explanation. And I have a plausible alternative; I know that through illusion one can perform such a trick. Thus I can rule out the supernatural explanation a priori. Wouldn't you?

Similarly, there are numerous alternatives to the supernatural explanation of the ressurection story. I know people lie, embellish, or even have false memories. I know that people can appear dead and not really be. I know that someone can disguise themselves and claim to be someone they're not. I could go on and on. Thus I can rule out the supernatural explanation a priori - there are plausible alternatives that don't have to resort to the supernatural.

Goliath

Atticus_Finch,

This comes right back to the faulty "Theorem" again (cf. previous posts).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Mageth

Oh, the irony:

These critical scholars start with the proposition that no supernatural event described in the bible could have occurred. That is hardly an objective starting point.
...
I've been working my way around to debunking that religion but I haven't gotten there yet.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Samhain

Guess the ethics concerning plagarism only arose in the last 100 years or so. Seriously, though, this argument lacks much IMO. We have already concluded that the Bible is an unreliable source, considering none of this could happen logically and scientifically. I recall reading another "story" by Shakespeare...Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was buried and was considered dead, but then rose again. The source, a potion made from a plant which could make her appear dead for even the doctors of that time. I forget what the plant is called, exactly, some kind of herb or root, I think, but I recall reading something suggesting that Jesus (If we can consider everything else in the NT true) could have taken this root and "appeared" dead to everyone, but could have "resurrected" later when he woke up from being drugged. I'm not sure if this could be taken as accurate or not, but it is one explanation for the resurrection which is far more believable than Jesus actually dying and rising from the dead through some kind of necromantic rite. Also considering the nature of the authors who wrote the accounts, I would count them as biased, at least. Also, considering there is no evidence outside of the Bible that suggests anything of Jesus, well, it kind of makes me wonder about it...

There can be several explanations for this, besides that Christianity is the one true religion. One would be from a purely economic standpoint. Sacrificing is done away with in Christianity because of Christ's death. One does not need to sacrifice their best goat or grain in order to appease god(s), so it saves the peasants quite a bit of money in this respect yes? Two would be from a fear standpoint. As so many xtians are fond of stating: "If you don't believe you will suffer hell-fire for all eternity." Three would be from a pleasure standing. Looking at polytheistic Roman religon, you have no real choice when you die. You die and go to one place, regardless of what happened in your life. When people are presented with the idea that you can go to heaven, the most beautiful place ever, just by following God, it seems a bit more appeasing than a place run by Pluto, yes? In addition they are presented with the idea that they can be more "exhaulted" in heaven if they do good to one another (an easy task, really), and they will get an even better spot in heaven with jewels on a crown of your own to show your deeds. Now if this hedonistic idea could not have appealed to the peasants at this time, I don't know what could have. They were promised a "high" spot in heaven, regardless of their work on earth as long as they did "good." This is far more appealing than the Underworld idea that polytheistic Rome held, is it not?

hezekiah jones

What? It's practically the operational definition of objectivity.

Kassiana

No, they don't. Matthew and Luke crib from the author of the gospel attributed to Mark, who wasn't an eyewitness (if he was, how'd he get Galilean geography entirely wrong? and if he allegedly got info from an eyewitness, same question applies). The author of the gospel of John, as I recall, makes no claim to actually have seen the events he records. There is no evidence internal to the gospels that Peter had anything to do with being the source of any of those materials.

Let's try giving evidence for your claims next time, okay?

hezekiah jones

Hey, he's a trial attorney. By definition he must abide by the rules of evidence.