Which Gnostic book? The Gnostic "gospels" were all written significantly after the canonical Gospels, and lack the specific names, dates and place references of the canonical Gospels. So while canonical Gospels (and Acts) describe specific events related to Pilate, 3 different Harods and many others as well as specific rituals, foods and even archetectural features which are specific to 1st century Palestine, the Gnostic gospels have none of this richness, nor specific connections to places and times.

As far as the Koran, that was receited by Mohammad about 600 years after the fact, and the individual verses were written down some time later based on the individual rememberances of countless people, many of which were not cross-varified. To be honest, Koran is a bigger stretch as a reference to Jesus then the Gnostic gospels. It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Mohammad was familiar with some of the Gnostic writings since there are some aspects of the Koran which reflect them. But if the Gnostic gospels aren't reliable, then certainly a derivatitive of them would be even less so.

On the other hand there were many people alive at the time that the NT books were being written and distributed who were alive and witnesses to the events in Jerusalom at the time of Jesus's death. Non-Christian Josephus also records his death (excluding the flowery embellishment which was likely added later), and the sudden rise of his followers afterwards.

Another question is why did Stephan, Peter and Paul and many others all willingly allow themselves to be killed (without taking anyone with them like in the current Mid-east) for someone who they knew was alive, and well and living a quiet family existance in Jerusalom? While not conclusive, it certainly suggests that they felt that they were going to a better place and following their Lord to a better place after their deaths, rather then fronting for retired figure back home. None of them were young men at the time of their deaths (comparatively speaking, it's relatively easy to get an 18 or 20 year old male to kill themselves doing something stupid), but in fact were certainly middle-aged or older.

So I understand how you may discount a piece here or a piece there, but the story doesn't add up unless you take it in it's totality at face value. This is because your discounts don't explain the later actions of those involved.

yada yada yada. The speculation on motives and actions of individuals 2000 years ago...

How can you possibly say "Another question is why did Stephan, Peter and Paul and many others all willingly allow themselves to be killed (without taking anyone with them like in the current Mid-east) for someone who they knew was alive, and well and living a quiet family existance in Jerusalom?" or "None of them were young men at the time of their deaths (comparatively speaking, it's relatively easy to get an 18 or 20 year old male to kill themselves doing something stupid), but in fact were certainly middle-aged or older."

Speculate away if you must. Its easier than facing much more likely explanation. Tell me this. Apart from the Bible itself - can you point to any contempory account, source document, historical evidence, scientific support or secular academic opinion that suggests Jesus Christ in fact rose from the dead?

As I said earlier -- the Bible as a single bound book is a modern construction. It is in fact a collection of books and letters written by a number of different people -- as even Nota has mentioned. Those people obviously believed that Jesus Christ in fact rose from the dead. So by definition you have multiple witness accounts right there.

Those books also report the existance of other people (such as Stephan) who believed that this was true, but who did not write down their beliefs. Then there are also the people in Rome, Greece, Ephesus and elsewhere such as Egypt and Turkey who met Peter, Paul and the others of the original disciples first-hand (such as the Apostle John - who was closest to Jesus and moved to Ephesus), and believed what they told them (irrespective of if Peter, Paul and John even wrote what is currently attibuted to them in the Bible) since many of those Christians continued their faith in the face of persecution and death.

Even Josephus (ignoring the "enhancements") acknowledges the sudden rise of Christianity in Rome at that time in spite of the fact that Jesus was killed.

At the end of the day, the Bible (especially the NT) contains a series of witness accounts. No more, no less. If you chose to accept the validity of those witnesses is up to you. But as I said, that is about the same level of information that we have regarding George Washington Crossing the Delaware.

- Other people said he did.
- He said he did.
- People (such as the Hessians) acted in a fashion that would support or suggest that he did cross the Delaware.

But at the end of the day, there is no DNA evidence nor a secure provenance that places George Washington in Trenton on that winter day. There are no pictures except those apocriphal images made after the fact. But yet it is widely accepted that George Washington did in fact cross the Delaware River and beat the crap out of a camp of Hessians. Why should Jesus be treated any differently?

So the answer (can you provide non bible verifcation, evidence, support) would no, then.

Your first para is only partly true. Its a collection of COPIES of letters and books written by various people, whose authorship can or cannot be substnatiaed- but that aside, lets accept these docuements on face value. I asked about verification outside of the various accounts contained in the books of the NT.

Now to your George Washington analogy. If you used it to support the fact that JC delivered say, the sermon on the Mount, sure. Lots of people have crossed rivers and lots have delivered sermons throughout history, and you or I could do either or both this very day if we chose. God willing.

However, fewer have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven with a host of angels, AFAIK. Sort of unprecedented really- then or now. IIRC, even the Cathlic Chriuch is softening up its constituency for a move away from the ressurection.

:eek:

well, ok yes and no....

we should care about things that "PEOPLE" do, albeit terrorists/fanatics etc.

but (from a <>< perspective) nothing in the bible says you go out and murder people.

I think you'll find you can NEVER convert people under duress to do anything. Torture, threat to life may "MAKE" the person say what you want to hear.

Have you heard of Martyrs ? People who have died for what they believe in.

If a gun was stuck to my head, I'd tell the perp to go shove it. At the end of the day a <>< who is saved has already got the keys to the gate. NOthing that anyone on this earth can do, will change that.

NO. JESUS POINT BLANK did not advocate violence, anyone who claims that he did is severely twisted.

can you proove he didn't ?

WORD !

:D :D SmileWavy

Actually that was your answer -- not mine. First you keep ignoring the fact that a "hostile (non-Christian)" observer has acknowledged the existance and death of Jesus of Nazereth. You're welcome to ignore the flowery language which appears to be added after the fact, but you're still left with the fact the specifically ties Jesus "Known as the Christ" with the Christian believers in Rome at that time.

Aside from that, my point was that there are an awful lot of people from the 1st century who acted consistantly with what is reported in the Bible. At the time of Eusebius there was a statue in Palestine recording the healing of the women from Ceasorea who had been aflicted with bleeding. It was there for all to dismiss, especially since even at that time Christians were not the predominant religion. But yet ow one appeared to dispute the events shown in the statue.

In addition, congregations of Christians quickly appeared in Asia minor, Egypt, Greece and Rome as a result of the efforts of the disciples -- formally fishermen and tax collectors. Something fired these people up in spite of the organization being decapitated when Jesus was executed. Further crucifixions and persecution (even of the next level of leaders -- specifically the disciples -- most of whom were executed) did not stop the movement.

Quote:

Your first para is only partly true. Its a collection of COPIES of letters and books written by various people, whose authorship can or cannot be substnatiaed-

The same is true of your local library.

I think what Stuart is saying (and what my position essentially boils down to) is that major tenets of Christianity comprises what is - by any standard - events that most people would find to be unbelievable (e.g. virgin births, miracles, rising from the dead, etc) and yet with the exception of *one* book (the bible - whose authors are unknown and authenticity is hard to independently verify), there is *no* evidence to substantiate these extraordinary events.

When asked for evidence of these unbelievable events, one standard answer is that there can be no evidence as this would undermine "faith". Well, I hope Christians can understand (even if they don't agree) that that answer is simply not good enough for those who do not believe. It just doesn't work.

I am currently reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" and I find it almost amusingly lacking as the answers he gives are useless for those people who don't already have "faith". I fully realize that what I am saying probably does not make sense to those with faith, but it is the reality that I find myself in. Without something more than a "trust me", I simply can't believe things that - for me - are very hard to believe.

If the separate books had not been collected into one bound collection (as was certainly the case prior to the council at Nicea), would that have made them more persuasive? If not, how many books would it take?

Bottom line -- short of seeing an event with their own two eyes (and even that isn't necessarily reliable as many illusionist have shown), everyone needs to interpret the information that they have available to them, both physical and witness, and make a choice. This applies to everything from science, to CNN to religion. That's free will. The curious thing is the very uneven standard that people use from one subject to another.

Look guys, the only thing in the universe that can be objectively and unequivocally proven is that we exist, as proven by the fact that we think.

Anything beyond that is our personal interpretation of what we believe we perceive and the things we believe we can deduce from our perceptions. Some people deduce the existence of God from the evidence presented to them. Others do not. Neither can be proven to the other's satisfaction.

I once had an interesting conversation with an atheist who was trying to convert me. He said that if God existed, he should give some sort of a sign and this guy would become a believer, but without that he would remain an atheist. I asked what sort of sign he would accept. He suggested God deposit a million dollars in his bank account - his soul was surely worth that much - if God existed. I suggested that no matter what the sign was, he would find an alternative explanation for it, and that if he did find a million dollars in his account the next day, he would still not think God put it there and that there was no level of proof possible to make him believe.

To his credit, the other guy thought about that for a bit, smiled and said "You're right. There's no sign I would accept as proof God exists." We didn't talk about it any more.

There are some people who will believe despite all evidence, there are others who will refuse to believe despite all evidence to support the existence of God. For my part, all I can say is that by thinking I can prove I exist, and by using my perception I can form an opinion of the world around me and divine the existence of things I can't see or prove exist. Like Paris, for instance. The city, not the person. I think I can deduce the existence of God and that Jesus is who he said he is. Why should that offend anyone?

Why should Jesus be treated differently? Simply because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Washington crossing the Delaware is a very ordinary claim, so ordinary proof will suffice.

And even though extraordinary proof is required, all you have is word of mouth. Not only that, but that word comes from biased individuals. Once again, shall we ask the followers of David Koresh what they thought of him, or should we get an independent opinion?

I also understand that each gospel presents a different version of the resurrection. One saw two angels, one didn’t see any, etc, etc. Now I’m sure you will say this is just verification that they all didn’t collaborate on a falsified story, or that their memory varied slightly between the events and when they wrote it down, but I say the story is far too important for there to be variations in it.

as far as I read the bible has no first person account
of the claimed resurrection
bible said mary mags mary mom and an other mary went to the cave saw one or two angels or a man in white and an empty cave
and ran back to town
now bible gospels are written by mark who was not there
mat who was not there and mostly copied mark
luke who was not there but copied both mark and mat
and john who was not there eathor but maybe close by
if indeed john wrote the G of john as dates hint that ain't so but at least he wrote his own version even if it is very different from the other three in many ways
and there is no first person written word from any mary
as later books claimed to be by them are thought to be fake

with no record of the earthquakes, darkness for 3 hours,
dead risen, temple vail split ect in any non bible source
did the jews and romans just not notice all that???

all unlike george at the Hessians base
there we have both sides written reports by people on site and in command plus other accounts by men there, captured stuff and dead bodys
plus wounded men

Unfortunately, they didn't have digital cameras, DNA testing, and fingerprint and eye retina scans back then, along with the many other technological advances we have today that can help prove who is who. (Ex: DNA testing determining if a man raped a woman).

So from ancient times, all we have is word of mouth, and ancient texts.

So mayb George Washington crossing the Delaware River isn't the good example, but how about the Pyramids of Egypt? The cities of the ancient Aztecs? Perhaps they also didn't exsist - maybe those buildings were built by a newer people group, or a bunch of aliens.

It is true: when you starting digging in the dirt, the older the dirt, the more difficult it becomes to authenticate things. But a failure to verify with 100 percent accuracy some event doesn't necessarily negate that event, even if that even has great significance. That, of course, is where faith comes into play.

-Z-man.

Well, this guy had his head in the sand. Being close-minded is no way to go through life. If this guy down in Florida right now (the guy who claims to be the second coming) started performing scientifically-verified miracles, I would start listening very closely to what he has to say.

The problem I have is that I cannot accept non-eyewitness accounts from unknown authors on an events that occurred 2000 years ago. I just can't. Especially given the nature of these events. To me, this whole thing is bigger than arguing over whether or not some minute aspect of the resurrection is true or not - I find the whole story untenable. But that's me.

If the evidence was so convincing, then the whole world would be full of Christians. And it's not. There are people who have spent their whole lives as fervent believers yet end up renouncing their faith. Did they not believe strongly enough? Were they not real Christians?

In the end, it shouldn't matter whether you believe or not. But in this country it does. For instance, try to get elected to public office if people know you are an atheist. Not likely to happen. People are persecuted for their belief and nonbelief and that is what's wrong.

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...s/a_frusty.gif

Just because someone with initials after their name (or worse appears on a documentary) says that they believe the Gospels are not what they claim to be doesn't make it so. That's is their theory, but it is at least as umproveable as any other claim.

The only difference is that your null hypothosis is that the historical provenance and witness provided by the Gospels are false, while anyone with a contrary theory is right until they are proven wrong. When it comes to the existance of the God, your null hypothosis is that in the absence of any historical provenance or witness (which you're earlier belief has discounted), there is no God.

Now if you were to ask me -- personally -- who's teaching do I believe constitute the salvation of the world: Dawkins or Jesus Christ (since both are claiming that mantle) --

Personally --

I'll go with Jesus, as reported in the Bible. The overwhelming arrogance and hubris of Dawkins does not sound like a means to saving the world. The guy couldn't even acknowledge that Sister Theresa was a great person! Dawkins couldn't see beyond his own petty existance if you took him buy the hand. So at the end of the day, I guess Dawkins and I disagree. I'm fine with that.

Counterpoint:

I suppose then, that you have a difficult time accepting evolution as the way we came to be. After all, there are no eyewitness accounts for the first time muddy-mudskipper decided to get out of the goop and take a walk around the neighborhood.

Again, the same thing can be said for the other side of the coin -- if the evidence for evolution and the non-exsistence of God were so convincing, then the whole world would be full of athiests who believe in evolution. There are people who have spent their whole lives as staunch believers of evolution yet end up finding faith in God. Did they not believe the evidence strongly enough? Were they not real athiestic evolutionists?

-Z-man.

Well, we have scientific evidence for evolution. Fossils and such. While no one was there to see it, there is evidence to be studied. This is not the case for the resurrection.

I’ve said this before, but I my thoughts are that god meets fundamental psychological needs. Here is what I have said before:

Having these needs met so well via religion is considered some as “evidence” that god exists. It is, of course, not really evidence.

Can someone confirm what nota said above? That there are no first person accounts of the resurrection? I always thought that those books were written in the first person. Yes, I read the bible, a long, long time ago, but I don’t remember these details.

If so, I find it astounding that people believe a second hand account of an event from a biased person. It’s like one of David Koresh’s followers giving an account of what another one of his followers claimed they saw.

Let's see how Dawkins stacks up...

1) Given that Dawkins hasn't been able to explain why we are here, yup -- he passes this test of a religion.
2) I assume that Dawkings believes that death is the end.
3) Listening to Dawkins, I doubt that he believes that he has any guilt, nor has ever done anything the would require forgiveness.
4) The group is called Athiests
5) Dawkins has this in SPADES!!!! :rolleyes:
6) I don't know if Dawkins knows what love is since it can not be seen, touched or proven in any physical fashion.
7) Obviously Dawkins is THE MAN when it comes to moral authority.
8) Dawkins has also demonstrated this repeatedl
9) Aww come on, is there any question that Dawkins feels the need to be right.

:rolleyes:

Yup, Dawkins is preaching a religion! It's the religion of Dawkins where's he's going to save the world.

(But by the way, he's not even big enough or gracious enough acknowledge a good person when he see one.)



SmileWavy