CX

I guess I would ask the same question as Bede. Namely, what is at issue here? That Jesus was crucified is not an especially controversial claim (except of course to those who don't accept an historical Jesus). What's at issue is the supernatural claims of Jesus' followers regarding his resurrection. The former seems nearly trivial to me while the latter seems monstrously improbable to the degree that it doesn't merit serious consideration. In any case there is certainly nothing we could consider evidence of the resurrection.

CX

One additional point. What would pass muster in a court of law is hardly sufficient to establish any significant truth claim. I am always curious why people consider this a good standard of evidence.

Vibr8gKiwi

Richard Packham (a retired lawyer) does a good job trouncing most "legal" arguments for the resurrection in this critique here:
<a href="http://home.teleport.com/~packham/montgmry.htm" target="_blank">Critique of John Warwick Montgomery's Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity</a>

Butters

Hearsay is not atmittable as evidence in a court of law.
The only evidence of the Life and death of Crist is hearsay.
Case closed.

diana

I'm not sure what he specifically is arguing for in this bit. He's travelling at the moment and has assured me he will come here to discuss these things as soon as he settles in--sometime in the next couple of days, I suspect.

In discussing it, I expect him to expand upon his arguments so his position is clear to all.

Thanks to all for your comments. That'll undoubtedly get the ball rolling.

d

Capt_Drakes

True, but I would hardly call him an independant witness. His passages (if they are to be assumed to be real) are only what would have been repeated by other christains. I would think that Josephus would never be allowed to the witness stand.

Uzzah

Since when does Paul actually talk about a living, breathing christ?


Uzzah

rdalin

The historicity of Jesus is hotly debated, let alone the resurrection. It is not correct to state that no serious historian doubts it.

The synoptic gospels cite eyewitnesses other than the authors. Mark, Paul and Luke were not eyewitnesses themselves.

How did Josephus get into this list?

'There is no motive' translates to 'Why would they lie?' Why, indeed? Possibly to buttress their inherently unbelievable accounts, and thus make the new religion sound more realistic.

rdalin

The historicity of the crucifixion may be a trivial issue in itself. However, it's clearly a vital precursor to the resurrection. Bede's claims that no serious historian doubts its historicity, along with assertions that three of the four synoptic gospel authors were eyewitnesses, appears to be an attempt to make it seem that the resurrection is, if not proven, at least possible.

Ronin

That is incorrect. Christian faith is based on historical fact. Paul wrote that if Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain. Therefore, Christianity purports to be based on historical fact. "Faith" is belief in the promises of God and His word. For example, one could believe that Jesus lived, died and rose again and not have "faith" that he will return in glory. But, a Christian can not reasonably believe that Jesus will return in glory unless he believes that Jesus actually lived, died and rose again.

You are chasing your tail, Atticus.

You, as a Christian, must 'believe without proof' that the entire biblical fable that was chucked together from assorted tales is a literal account of events.

You must also discount all of the other religious fables of the assorted world cultures that contradict the claims of Christianity and those Christian fairy tales that 'did not make the cut' when the canon was collected.

That you have a character in a story named Paul admonishing 'believers' that if Christ is not risen then our 'faith' is in vain is merely a circuitous snare to keep the sheep in line. To say that the Bible is true, because the characters in the Bible say it is true is credulity at its worst.

Ultimately, your last sentence reduced your defense back to re-inforcing the fact that ~

The crucifixion and all the tenets of Christianity are based on 'faith' ~

Faith is the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.