Illusion Dweller

That is either a fact or it is not. There is evidence of his resurrection and it is upon that evidence that I base my "faith" in his promise to return. You may dispute the evidence but you can not reasonably say that it does not exist. Nor can you say that Christian faith is not based upon historical evidence.

what evidence??
I am the messiah.
According to your logic, there is now evidence that I am the messiah. No, I have to talk to Monk publishing first

Starboy

To All Christians:

If you look at what is called the NT Gospels, isn't there an automatic confusion by the faithful between reported events and the interpretation of those events? Can't one remove events from the Gospels and separate them from their explanations and find more natural explanations or dismiss them as too fantastic to be true? Isn’t the acceptance of the non-natural explanations a matter of faith, since it is more rational to accept natural explanations for reported events? If you as a Christian allow yourself to accept the supernatural explanations for NT events, then where does it stop? Once the non-natural is allowed into one’s thinking how does the faithful mind decide what to accept or reject?

Starboy

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Bede

DC, scholars are in general agreement that Jesus of Nazereth was crucified. I don't know what you are asking these guys, but it is not that.

B

diana

Good job, Bede.

Beat him to death with repetitive assertion.

I know I'm convinced.

d

Atticus_Finch

You misstate or misunderstand my logic. "I am the Messiah" and "Jesus rose from the dead" are very different assertions. One could believe that Jesus rose from the dead and not believe that he is the Messiah. Whether I believe Jesus to be the Messiah depends upon my theological interpretation of the events of His life. Whether he rose from the dead does not depend upon theological interpretation. He either did or he didn't.

But it is undeniable that there is evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. For example, at least 2 (Matthew and John, arguably 3 including Peter) eyewitnesses left us written accounts of his death, burial and resurrection. Whether you find it convincing or not, that is evidence of the resurrection. I understand that you may argue that none of the accounts are "eyewitness" accounts. However, there is certainly evidence that they are and I am not intending to start that debate yet another time.

Regards,

Finch

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

Butters

Posted by Bede,
O.K., I'll bite, How did they come to that general agreement?

Ronin

But it is undeniable that there is evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. For example, at least 2 (Matthew and John, arguably 3 including Peter) eyewitnesses left us written accounts of his death, burial and resurrection. Whether you find it convincing or not, that is evidence of the resurrection. I understand that you may argue that none of the accounts are "eyewitness" accounts. However, there is certainly evidence that they are and I am not intending to start that debate yet another time.

Atticus ~

Your credulity really knows no limitations.

Your circuits are wrapped in an endless loop.

Your 'witnesses' are mythical characters within the fiction you purport is historical.

To say that there is evidence that events in the bible are true, because the bible stories say that they are true is utter foolishness.

I doubt you use this fallacious methodology in any other facet of your life ~ yet, for the snare of Christianity, you are willing to sacrifice your critical thought.

Bede

From the historical evidence. Lots of independent attestation and the unprecedented idea of a prophet being honoured by his followers for dying like a slave.

Why not read a basic book like Crossan's Revolutionary Biography. He explains stuff, and there are lots of textbooks by noted scholars.

B

FunkyRes

Does the rationallity of an explanation define the truth?

FunkyRes

Prove it.