Ion

It is not the same level of proof:

I am looking for undeniable proof, any undeniable proof (sandal, weapon, cross, wrath, cloth) involved in miracle Jesus' physical existence, same as the undeniable proofs I enumerated that are involved in the more ordinary Iulius Caesar's existence.

"...is probably..." is not good enough:
nothing proves that it belongs to the miraculous Biblical Jesus, all that it shows is that it could be from any possible crucified person in an unidentified time;
I would inquire about the Shroud being a medieval forgery like Baidarka mentioned, with the Alfred Neuman effect not being displayed .

If this manages to be cleared up as proving that a Jesus was crucified by Romans 2,000 years ago, then the next step is to prove that the same crucified Jesus performed any miracle whatsoever before dying, and that he miraculously resurrected with "...all the tribes on the earth..." (Matt 24:30) seeing this.

It's a long way to establish Jesus existence and miracles in history, the way Iulius Caesar existence and wars are established.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Radorth

And how would you be convinced that one of those relics was real? There ARE relics, but no thinking person trusts any of them because they realize they could fake virtually anything. Therefore your comparison is absurd.

And now you are demanding proof of miracles and the resurrection. The latter is virtually impossible to prove since nobody would be there. (Not that a video tape would be believed). The former is proven by the absurdity of the alternatives- the assertion that six NT writers were blatant liars, not to mention the verse "he could not do many miracles there."

Besides, it is obvious that skeptics here take the most astounding premises by faith, and rely on internal evidence for the most credulous of conclusions, so the issue is not "scientific evidence" anyway. They mangle scriptures to promote one conspiracy theory after another, freely cherry-picking internal evidence while demanding external evidence at every turn. May they not be judged strictly by their own rules, fair as that would be.

Kindly give us a brief summary of your own beliefs, conclusions and proofs about how the Christians came to write the NT. The assertion that it is false requires better proof than any I've seen. Most of what I have seen requires more faith than anything written in the Gospels.

Rad

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

DivineOb

It's because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence yadda yadda... The reason it is so difficult to prove something supernatural with only mundane artifacts which can be faked is because the one true god(tm) can't be bothered to provide any evidence of his existence for himself.

What sort of artifacts would it take to convince you that Muhammed was a prophet of the one true god(tm)?

Quote:

And now you are demanding proof of miracles and the resurrection. The latter is virtually impossible to prove since nobody would be there.

If I could experience even a one minor miracle (even something as trivial as this bowl on my desk suddently levitating) I would be much more inclined to believe the claims made in the bible of miracles in the past. I don't necessarily need proof that those specific miracles attributed to Jesus occured, but I do need proof that *any* miracles have occured *ever*.

Quote:

(Not that a video tape would be believed). The former is proven by the absurdity of the alternatives- the assertion that six NT writers were blatant liars, not to mention the verse "he could not do many miracles there."

Do you assert that Jospeh Smith and the many people who directly attested to having seen the golden tablets were liars or were in error?

<strong> My reasons are the same as whatever reasons you give for rejecting all other religions which claim to have the one holy truth(tm). In another thread I posted evidence for a particular miracle which is attributed to Muhammed which had for more evidence going for it than evidence for any miracles of christianity (many statements from eyewitnesses, and mentioned in their "holy text" which is clearly more trustworthy than the bible on its best day). Did all those people lie about Muhammed splitting the moon? Were they all mistaken? Were they all insane? Did the early Buddhists make up the miracles attributed to the Buddha? Did the early mormons make up that they saw the golden tablets?

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: DivineOb ]</p>

Butters

This relates to something I was thinking about the other day. Watching a show on Noah's Ark. It has been found several times, but there is never any proof of these finds. The Russians supposedly took films of it, but they disapeared. I started thinking.

The Ark of the covenent.
The Ten commandments(in the Ark)
The staff of Moses
The traces of the Exodus.
Noah's Ark
And ANY trace of Jesus
And I'm sure others can think of more.
Either God is really working hard to keep ANY evidence of his Biblical working secret, or, well, maybe the never was any.

leonarde

Posted by Ion: 1)Such does not exist for any person in history.

2)What would it possibly mean that something is
"undeniable"? People can be extemely contrary and
refuse to believe (deny) anything that suits them.

3) You, in your list for Caesar, did not prove, nor apparently did you seek to prove, that
they were 'undeniable'.

4)Instead all you did was:claim that such
was proof. Apparently now you are claiming without
a shred of evidence that the things you mentioned
constitute "undeniable proof". (Just to play devil's advocate: I deny it!. So convince
me!)

5)What is there that would stop a person from
claiming that Caesar didn't write "The Gallic Wars" but that some (unknown) subordinate of his
did? Nothing! Hence, it IS "deniable".

6)My overall criticism of your approach still stands: history is NOT a science. (and even in
science there are heretics).

Cheers!

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Radorth

Correct me if I am wrong (preferrably with links) but as I recall in the case of Muhammed and Buddha, there were not eyewitnesses or reporters of the same generation. Muhammed himself apparently considered the Quran to be his only miracle. Your sole evidence of moon-splitting is Sura 54:1, which does not even mention Muhammed, and is clearly a hypothetical, much akin to Jesus' saying "They won't believe even if one is raised from the dead."

In the case of the Mormons, only Smith's immediate family saw the plates. Right?

Rad

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

lpetrich

Actually, it's the first thing one would think of. And a very reasonable thing to think.

Getting all broken up proves nothing.

It is as if Matthew and Luke want Jesus Christ to have an eminent pedigree, and are willing to invent genealogies to provide him with one, though they negate this conclusion by portraying Joseph as reproductively cuckolded, and thus a stepfather.

lpetrich

Richard Carrier has done exactly that in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html" target="_blank">one of his essays on miracles</a>.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Ion

This link that I read a while ago, to begin with:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html</a>
which was posted by Ipetrich also.

Happy hunting.

We can go into discussing this and other articles, if you still argue that the Shroud of Turin compares -even remotely- with evidence for Iulius Caesar.

leonarde

Ion,

1)While posting links to URLs is a very fine thing, it is customary to explain: what specifically the link is about and HOW specifically the link relates to a point or points
being made. If possible and the format allows it,
a short excerpt would help in doing those things.

2)I'm sure that the link in question does not claim that each and every item you mentioned in connection with Julius Caesar constitutes in and of itself "undeniable
proof" that it was connected with J. Caesar. That is evidently what you were claiming
(or did I misunderstand?).

3)The site I linked to involving the Shroud of Turin would take the average person weeks to get
through since it involves many technical papers.
Therefore I know darned well that you haven't read
it. How, then, can you make any claims about the
level of authenticity that the Shroud holds vis a
vis the historical Jesus?

4)When you make a claim about point X in a thread
it is your obligation to articulate the proofs for that claim. Merely linking a URL does
not do that. (I linked the Shroud of Turin site
NOT to support any particular claim I made in this
thread but because I thought you genuinely unaware
of the Shroud's existence).

Cheers!