As previously stated, the article written by William Lane Craig is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; I gave the article its due respect and "actually" read it in its entirety. Has anyone else for the matter? I was sincerely interested to learn (or consider) what Mr. Craig had to state, since he has devoted so much of his life to this particular field and more. In the end, I had something to think about. And I think you will too. Below is a brief insert of the article.
"Turning next to the external evidence for the gospels' authenticity, Vernet argues that the disciples must have left some writings, engaged as they were in giving lessons to and counseling believers who were geographically distant. And what could these writings be if not the gospels and epistles themselves? Similarly, Paley reasons that eventually the apostles would have needed to publish accurate narratives of Jesus' history, so that any spurious attempts would be discredited and the genuine gospels preserved. Moreover, Vernet continues, there were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Most importantly, the extra-biblical testimony unanimously attributes the gospels to their traditional authors.
No finer presentation of this point can be found than Paley's extensive eleven-point argument. First, the gospels and Acts are cited by a series of authors, beginning with those contemporary with the apostles and continuing in regular and close succession. This is the strongest form of historical testimony, regularly employed to establish authorship of secular works; and when this test is applied to the gospels, their authenticity is unquestionably established. Paley traces this chain of testimony from the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas all the way up to Eusebius in A.D. 315. Less presents similar evidence, and concludes that there is better testimony for the authenticity of the NT books than for any classical work of antiquity.
Second, the Scriptures were quoted as authoritative and as one-of-a-kind. As proof Paley cites Theophilus, the writer against Artemon, Hippolitus, Origen, and many others.
Third, the Scriptures were collected very early into a distinct volume. Ignatius refers to collections known as the Gospel and the Apostles, what we today call the gospels and the epistles. According to Eusebius, about sixty years after the appearance of the gospels Quadratus distributed them to converts during his travels. Irenaeus and Melito refer to the collection of writings we call the NT.
Fourth, these writings were given titles of respect. Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Irenaeus, and others refer to them as Scriptures, divine writings, and so forth.
Fifth, these writings were publicly read and expounded. Citations from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian go to prove the point.
Sixth, copies, commentaries, and harmonies were written on these books. Noteworthy in this connection is Tatian's Diatessaron, a harmony of the four gospels, from about A.D. 170. With the single exception of Clement's commentary on the Revelation of Peter, Paley emphasizes, no commentary was ever written during the first 300 years after Christ on any book outside the NT
Seventh, the Scriptures were accepted by all heretical groups as well as by orthodox Christians. Examples include the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, and many others.
Eighth, the gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter were received without doubt as authentic even by those who doubted the authenticity of other books now in the canon. Caius about A.D. 200 reckoned up about thirteen of Paul's letters, but insisted that Hebrews was not written by Paul. About twenty years later Origen cites Hebrews to prove a particular point, but noting that some might dispute the authority of Hebrews, he states that his point may be proved from the undisputed books of Scripture and quotes Matthew and Acts. Though he expresses doubt about some books, Origen reports that the four gospels alone were received without dispute by the whole Church of God under heaven.
Ninth, the early opponents of Christianity regarded the gospels as containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded. Celsus admitted that the gospels were written by the disciples. Porphyry attacked Christianity as found in the gospels. The Emperor Julian followed the same procedure.
Tenth, catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, which always contained the gospels and Acts. Paley supports the point with quotations from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and others.
Eleventh, the so-called apocryphal books of the NT were never so treated. It is a simple fact, asserts Paley, that with a single exception, no apocryphal gospel is ever even quoted by any known author during the first three hundred years after Christ. In fact, there is no evidence that any inauthentic gospel whatever existed in the first century, in which all four gospels and Acts were written. The apocryphal gospels were never quoted, were not read in Christian assemblies, were not collected into a volume, were not listed in the catalogues, were not noticed by Christianity's adversaries, were not appealed to by heretics, and were not the subject of commentaries or collations, but were nearly universally rejected by Christian writers of succeeding ages.
Therefore, Paley concludes, the external evidence strongly confirms the authenticity of the gospels. Even if it should be the case that the names of the authors traditionally ascribed to the gospels are mistaken, it still could not be denied that the gospels do contain the story that the original apostles proclaimed and for which they labored and suffered.
Taken together, then, the internal and external evidence adduced by the Christian apologists served to establish the first step of their case, that the gospels are authentic."
that long post means nothing. You give an 11 point arguement........but fail to post the one thing that is the ultimate agruement killer. Those writings were made by believers, they are not unbiased documentary record. There is a bias and agenda. The agenda is based soly on the statements within those accounts given. Therefore, to further their agenda, their writings must adhere to their bias view.
If we were to take Hitler's biased views presented to further his agenda.......Jews must be destroyed to preserve the purity of the aryan race. Are you proclaiming him to be correct aswell? I mean......his word has several advantages over the accounts given in the gospels. We do infact know the exact person who was giving those views. We do know he was an intelligent and educated man. Would his words not stand up moreso than those of some uneducated, unknowledgable ancient men who's existence has not yet been proven....or even that it was seperate men and not one man writing under several different pen names?
biased accounts given to further an agenda mean nothing......less than nothing. you want something with a bit of credibility? show me a Rabbi who proclaims these gospels as truths.......hell, anybody who does not have a bias nor agenda to promote.
a UFO nut reporting that they "done seen a bright light over yonder in the sky with aliens a drivin' it" has no creedence whatsoever. Their status as UFO nut already promotes a bias and an agenda. Now if Mr. Stephen Hawking wants to tell me about the UFO he saw, I'm all ears.
Re: Scientific and Legal-Historical Proof
Originally posted by ushomefree
It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof.Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.
With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.
The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.
William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html
The Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html
what exactly is the purpose of this post...to prove that the people who wrote the bible were real people is what it appears to be which to me seems to be spurious and irrelevant...as are the analogies
Let me say something outright, right now.
Up until this point, i have managed to take certain memeber's posts seriously, but from this thread, I see I have been greatly mistaken.
And this is to a majority people who posted in this thread.
Do you know why you hate Christians so much?
Because you are EXACTLY the same as the fundamentalist you hate.
And it bothers you because you see yourself in everything they do.
You do not open mind to anything other than what YOU believe, and furthermore, through insult and extreamly inpolite paragraphs try to depict others posts and convince how everyone else is stupid but you.
Sound familiar?
Its actually almost everyone who answered in this thread with such an arrogance and authority.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, you act exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians.
''EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I DO - WAAAAAAAA''
I'm so convinced!
''EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I DO - WAAAAAAAA''
was that toward the Christians? 'cause the majority of us don't ramble on about "beliefs".......we ramble on about proven facts and truths and ask that others rambling on about invisible people living in the sky stalking us, bushes lit afire that do not burn and other fantastic paranormal events to please put fourth the facts and truths to support their ramblings.
you tell me you own a pink unicorn who frolics in your backyard with your purple dragon and expect me to take your word without any proof, evidence or facts presented? Then why would you expect any less when you ramble on about invisible people living in the sky, watching you like a stalker, judging you who stops occasionally to rape a virgin who will hence give birth to a half human/half invisible man hybrid which can walk on water......die....resurrect...promising to return again one day.
Evil Dead-
We can refrain from future statements about matters of fact being verified, whether historical or scientific, by all available resources; I am a proponent of such measures. "Blind" faith requires intellectual suicide, and I am not asking that of my readers, to include yourself. This forum was created in light of an article written by William Lane Craig. And yes, he does have an agenda, but that in itself does not discredit his credentials, much like Stephen Hawking or any other "subject matter expert" within their respective field(s). William Lane Craig is not a layman. I simply challenged my readers to read his article in its "entirety" and reach a conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) based upon the evidence provided, however strong or weak. No one (to my recollection) has done so! Instead, this forum has been bombarded with fancy, arrogant statements having zero impact on the issue. In order to "effectively" participate in this forum, you must be fair; you must read the article in its "entirety." Otherwise, you'll have no basis for an argument. We all have opinions, and I welcome them, but you must read the article. You must be thorough.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Evil Dead-We can refrain from future statements about matters of fact being verified, whether historical or scientific, by all available resources; I am a proponent of such measures. "Blind" faith requires intellectual suicide, and I am not asking that of my readers, to include yourself. This forum was created in light of an article written by William Lane Craig. And yes, he does have an agenda, but that in itself does not discredit his credentials, much like Stephen Hawking or any other "subject matter expert" within their respective field(s). William Lane Craig is not a layman. I simply challenged my readers to read his article in its "entirety" and reach a conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) based upon the evidence provided, however strong or weak. No one (to my recollection) has done so! Instead, this forum has been bombarded with fancy, arrogant statements having zero impact on the issue. In order to "effectively" participate in this forum, you must be fair; you must read the article in its "entirety." Otherwise, you'll have no basis for an argument. We all have opinions, and I welcome them, but you must read the article. You must be thorough.
Your readers? Are you a columnist?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Let me say something outright, right now.Up until this point, i have managed to take certain memeber's posts seriously, but from this thread, I see I have been greatly mistaken.
And this is to a majority people who posted in this thread.
Do you know why you hate Christians so much?Because you are EXACTLY the same as the fundamentalist you hate.
And it bothers you because you see yourself in everything they do.You do not open mind to anything other than what YOU believe, and furthermore, through insult and extreamly inpolite paragraphs try to depict others posts and convince how everyone else is stupid but you.
Sound familiar?
Its actually almost everyone who answered in this thread with such an arrogance and authority.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, you act exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians.
''EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I DO - WAAAAAAAA''
I'm so convinced!
A strong over-reaction. The sicentific method can be applied to every form of study. This "legal-historical proof" is not a valid concept. All the parts of it that are valid utilize the scientific method, just liek every field of academic sicence (physical, biological, and social) today.
Alliance-
So... if what you say is true, you could prove (for example) that you went shopping for a new pair of shoes at the Towson Plaza on friday of last week using scientific method? That is utterly amazing. Please explain; test your theory! And do not use "whatsoever"any historical evidence, because (as you already stated) it is "not valid." Enlighten me. Just utilize scientific method. This should be interesting, no doubt!
Originally posted by Alliance
A strong over-reaction. The sicentific method can be applied to every form of study. This "legal-historical proof" is not a valid concept. All the parts of it that are valid utilize the scientific method, just liek every field of academic sicence (physical, biological, and social) today.
Ok, I overreacted a little. Trolls on the boards contributed to that.
I complitely agree with scientific method, and I also tend to disagree that the 'withnessing' can be such a good indiciation of what happened.
(Criminal Justice has proven this over and over again)
I was just pissed at how some people in this thread replied - in a very rude manner instead of a proper debate.
It reminded me of the rude preaching of the religious people. The very same thing I, and I persume you, don't like.
''this thread is stupid, you are stupid'' isn't very constructive.