Jesus Christ and the Resurrection (what does the evidence reveal?)

Originally posted by docb77
Not really, there aren't any eyewitnesses to flying reindeer (although who would really be able to see them if they were flying as fast as was indicated). There is no evidence for a magical Santa Claus (St. Nicholas however, could very well have existed)

Biblically there were many witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. You can doubt or even disbelieve the evidence, but you can't say that there isn't any.

I can say that there isn't any proof. The story of the resurrection of Jesus was most likely made up to attract followers. There is safety in numbers.

Which is more likely, a human arose from the dead, of people made up stories to increase their power in a new religion. I know how people are; they make things up all the time. They take a story that is true and by the time it gets through a hundred people, it has very little resemblance to the truth.

Introduction

One of the most common objections to the existence of God comes from arguments about the existence of Santa Claus and invisible pink unicorns. Although it is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist, we tend to reject their existence, since none have ever been detected. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?

God created by mankind?

Most skeptics believe that humans invented God as a means of comfort against an uncertain world that is filled with peril and disappointment. However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4

It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

In addition to the above problems, believing a lie contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. In fact, Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, says that he has carefully investigated everything so that the truth may be known.6 Christians are told to believe and practice only truth,7 and warned against believing and practicing lies.8 So, the idea that they would violate their conscious and beliefs just to feel better makes no sense.

Invisible pink unicorns?

Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe? As of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No rocky planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later this decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the universe, while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely that pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically, since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus

Is the existence of God comparable to the existence of Santa Claus or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is likely to melt within the next 100 years, we will have further evidence that nobody actually lives at the North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been discussed above. The existence of such creatures has been hypothesized to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible says that no one can see God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God is a non-physical being.12 In addition, God created the entire universe,13 including time itself,14 which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both Santa Claus and unicorns are contingent beings, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns is logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?

Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or evidence that any kind of God actually exists. However, such claims represent mere hand waving to avoid critically examining the evidence. I was raised as an agnostic, but became a deist in a secular college (University of Southern California) as a result of my training in biological sciences. It was obvious to this honors student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself, the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in our own species. We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.

Conclusion

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.

seeing as christianity is a renamed sun religion. i would say the ressurection was a myth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can say that there isn't any proof. The story of the resurrection of Jesus was most likely made up to attract followers. There is safety in numbers.

Which is more likely, a human arose from the dead, of people made up stories to increase their power in a new religion. I know how people are; they make things up all the time. They take a story that is true and by the time it gets through a hundred people, it has very little resemblance to the truth.

nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

Originally posted by docb77
nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

💃

JIA Your post above is amazing. The logic is so circular, that it is almost impossible to understand. Basically what you are saying is that god exists because.

Originally posted by docb77
nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

Ok, poor evidence does exist, but as JIA has just said above, there is also evidence for invisible pink unicorns, although very poor evidence.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

[b]Introduction

One of the most common objections to the existence of God comes from arguments about the existence of Santa Claus and invisible pink unicorns. Although it is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist, we tend to reject their existence, since none have ever been detected. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?

God created by mankind?

Most skeptics believe that humans invented God as a means of comfort against an uncertain world that is filled with peril and disappointment. However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4

It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

In addition to the above problems, believing a lie contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. In fact, Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, says that he has carefully investigated everything so that the truth may be known.6 Christians are told to believe and practice only truth,7 and warned against believing and practicing lies.8 So, the idea that they would violate their conscious and beliefs just to feel better makes no sense.

Invisible pink unicorns?

Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe? As of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No rocky planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later this decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the universe, while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely that pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically, since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus

Is the existence of God comparable to the existence of Santa Claus or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is likely to melt within the next 100 years, we will have further evidence that nobody actually lives at the North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been discussed above. The existence of such creatures has been hypothesized to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible says that no one can see God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God is a non-physical being.12 In addition, God created the entire universe,13 including time itself,14 which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both Santa Claus and unicorns are contingent beings, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns is logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?

Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or evidence that any kind of God actually exists. However, such claims represent mere hand waving to avoid critically examining the evidence. I was raised as an agnostic, but became a deist in a secular college (University of Southern California) as a result of my training in biological sciences. It was obvious to this honors student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself, the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in our own species. We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.

Conclusion

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest. [/B]

This article was not written by me it was written by Richard Deem.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This article was not written by me it was written by Richard Deem.

I figured so. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I figured so. 😄

Yes...JIA does have problems thinking for himself.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes...JIA does have problems thinking for himself.

How would you know? He never writes anything. 😉

Its called deductive logic, you Buddhist 😛.

Originally posted by docb77
nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

jump notworthy pile 👆

🤣

Originally posted by docb77
Not really, there aren't any eyewitnesses to flying reindeer (although who would really be able to see them if they were flying as fast as was indicated). There is no evidence for a magical Santa Claus (St. Nicholas however, could very well have existed)

Biblically there were many witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. You can doubt or even disbelieve the evidence, but you can't say that there isn't any.

"Biblically" - that is the sticking point it would seem. We once again have the Bible validating its own claim that what is says is true because it says it is.

In legal terms this would not be considered eye witness testimony. It is far closer to hearsay:

"Your honor, I have hear a book that claims over five hundred people saw the incident. No, none of them are available for to offer testimony. No, other then Biblical sources we don't have any independent correlation with other sources. Yes, essentially you will have to take the Bible's word for it."

That is not eye witness proof. Otherwise you would have to give equal consideration to the Greek plays and myths that have people going down and getting loved ones from Hades. After all, those stories claim there were eye witnesses - should we actually believe that occurred just because a scroll says "Such and such came back from the dead. Hundreds saw him. Thus it is true." And I mean - he chose not to parade up to the Roman authority it seems. He chose not to let writers see him. You don't have Roman historians, who loved weaving myths and omens into their works writing "And then one of the Crucified men was seen walking about." No. You have the Bible claiming he was seen by 500 people, and the Disciples, who would indubitably have had ulterior motives.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

Don't forget early Christians had a persecution complex. Many wanted to be killed while proudly declearing their love for God and Jesus because they thought it was a fast track to heaven.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
"Biblically" - that is the sticking point it would seem. We once again have the Bible validating its own claim that what is says is true because it says it is.

In legal terms this would not be considered eye witness testimony. It is far closer to hearsay:

"Your honor, I have hear a book that claims over five hundred people saw the incident. No, none of them are available for to offer testimony. No, other then Biblical sources we don't have any independent correlation with other sources. Yes, essentially you will have to take the Bible's word for it."

That is not eye witness proof. Otherwise you would have to give equal consideration to the Greek plays and myths that have people going down and getting loved ones from Hades. After all, those stories claim there were eye witnesses - should we actually believe that occurred just because a scroll says "Such and such came back from the dead. Hundreds saw him. Thus it is true." And I mean - he chose not to parade up to the Roman authority it seems. He chose not to let writers see him. You don't have Roman historians, who loved weaving myths and omens into their works writing "And then one of the Crucified men was seen walking about." No. You have the Bible claiming he was seen by 500 people, and the Disciples, who would indubitably have had ulterior motives.

Partially correct. However the Gospels of Mark and John are firsthand accounts and would be considered firsthand accounts. Likewise we have firsthand accounts by Paul of his experience. Many witnesses have "ulterior motives". That doesn't mean that their testimony is disregarded out of hand. It is weighed against opposing evidence. In order to accept the ressurection as a hoax you'd have to believe the apostles to be liars and thieves. The closest you could get from what is known about them is Paul (He was accessory to murder during his persecution of the early christians). Then you've got Matthew who was *gasp* a tax collector. Sorry, but the witnesses of the ressurection are about as good as you're going to get from 2000 years ago. Why would Jesus appear to the people who crucified Him rather than those who were devastated by his death? That would be more ridiculous than a resurrection by far.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Don't forget early Christians had a persecution complex. Many wanted to be killed while proudly declearing their love for God and Jesus because they thought it was a fast track to heaven.

That complex didn't really show up until a few decades later. The apostles for the most part ran for their lives on the night Jesus was arrested.

-edit-

as far as corroboration, your forgetting Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and a few books mentioned in the NT and later extrabiblical writings that didn't survive to our day. Of course they're also hearsay, but that can be used for corroboration of testimony.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
"Biblically" - that is the sticking point it would seem. We once again have the Bible validating its own claim that what is says is true because it says it is.

In legal terms this would not be considered eye witness testimony. It is far closer to hearsay:

"Your honor, I have hear a book that claims over five hundred people saw the incident. No, none of them are available for to offer testimony. No, other then Biblical sources we don't have any independent correlation with other sources. Yes, essentially you will have to take the Bible's word for it."

That is not eye witness proof. Otherwise you would have to give equal consideration to the Greek plays and myths that have people going down and getting loved ones from Hades. After all, those stories claim there were eye witnesses - should we actually believe that occurred just because a scroll says "Such and such came back from the dead. Hundreds saw him. Thus it is true." And I mean - he chose not to parade up to the Roman authority it seems. He chose not to let writers see him. You don't have Roman historians, who loved weaving myths and omens into their works writing "And then one of the Crucified men was seen walking about." No. You have the Bible claiming he was seen by 500 people, and the Disciples, who would indubitably have had ulterior motives.

Don't forget early Christians had a persecution complex. Many wanted to be killed while proudly declearing their love for God and Jesus because they thought it was a fast track to heaven.

So then your history book that claims that George Washington did thus and so must be treated with the same skepticism that you have for the Bible. Question: were you there to witness all of the historical events surrounding George Washington? All you have are "claims" from other people (who are not alive by the way) that he did thus and so.

http://www.sirlook.com/blog/entry.php?u=dgilch&e_id=1026

Except that historical documents surroundin most other people, including Washington, are well documented.

Historical records of Christ at or near the time of his existance are non-existant.

Your logic sucks and all yo do is present re-hashed talking points from factually incorrect creationist websites.

Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link)

Originally posted by docb77
Partially correct. However the Gospels of Mark and John are firsthand accounts and would be considered firsthand accounts. Likewise we have firsthand accounts by Paul of his experience. Many witnesses have "ulterior motives". That doesn't mean that their testimony is disregarded out of hand. It is weighed against opposing evidence. In order to accept the ressurection as a hoax you'd have to believe the apostles to be liars and thieves. The closest you could get from what is known about them is Paul (He was accessory to murder during his persecution of the early christians). Then you've got Matthew who was *gasp* a tax collector. Sorry, but the witnesses of the ressurection are about as good as you're going to get from 2000 years ago. Why would Jesus appear to the people who crucified Him rather than those who were devastated by his death? That would be more ridiculous than a resurrection by far.

Tell me. I write a book today, off my own back, claiming something extraordinary (it didn't actually happen, I am just claiming it did.) To verify it I give the statement in the book "Close to five hundred people other then myself saw this extraordinary thing." I put a stipulation on it that it wont be published until, say, 500 years later.

There is no archaeological or other documents evidence to support it, and the so called witnesses, if they ever existed, are long gong, none of them having thought "hey, this was really something, I better record it for posterity" - now is this valid evidence? Does it constitute as eye witness accounts? No. Which is why historians these days don't base an entire theory on some line in a ancient text "Such and such saw this" - they will mention it, look around for something to corroborate it. If such a thing doesn't exist for something really important... well that says something.

Because let us face the cold hard truth - ancient historians were quite liberal with interpretations, sources, motives and all the rest. And you forget - you make it sound as if the Disciples wouldn';t have had any reason to lie. Maybe they actually believed it. But remember - they lived in a time of thousands of gods and claims and the like. Thousands of religions with followers making all sorts of claims. Either it is possible all those claims might be true, or none are - or all are merely exaggerations of actual occurrences.

as far as corroboration, your forgetting Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and a few books mentioned in the NT and later extrabiblical writings that didn't survive to our day. Of course they're also hearsay, but that can be used for corroboration of testimony.

Tacitus who was writing some period after Jesus and the Christians were a growing movement - it is easy to reference something that people talk about.

Josephus who also wrote after the fact.

Pliny the Younger who was writing even later and who was one of those in charge of dealing with Christians, who were now an even larger movement with a history.

Texts that don't exist any more? Unfortunate, but it happens. Generally an argument can't be based upon no longer existent texts.

None of them were exactly contemporaries of Jesus. None of them were eye witnesses. Most used sources derived, it is believed of other sources. Christians start saying "Our God came back from the death" - then it is only natural for the historians above to say "The people who worship Christ" - it doesn't exactly prove anything. Unless you are saying Heracles actually did all those mythological feats, and that Fortune herself spoke to Alaric or that the founding of the Roman people was exactly as Virgil implied in the Aeneid.

So then your history book that claims that George Washington did thus and so must be treated with the same skepticism that you have for the Bible. Question: were you there to witness all of the historical events surrounding George Washington? All you have are "claims" from other people (who are not alive by the way) that he did thus and so.

Actually you shoot yourself in the foot there, and hight light the whole issue - evidence. The amount of documented, literal evidence for Washington is massive. As is archaeological evidence the things happened. As is record not derived from a single source. And so on and so on. Washington is to Jesus in evidenced terms as an Elephant is to a flea.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link) [/B]

1st - Roman historians were not generally favorable sources regarding Christians.

2nd - Just because they mention Christians does not make Christian claims true - unless you Christians are prepared to give equal weight to Islam. And the Pagan religions. And Asiatic religions. And all the rest since they wrote about them to.

3rd - Most do not give much credibility to Biblical claims. They work on the Christians themselves - Tacitus mentions how the fire in Rome was blamed on the Christians (or the people who follow Christus - since Christ is not actually Jesus name, but rather a title.) Pliny talking about how they were breaking the law. They are not babbling about how "Christus rose again on the third day"

4th - So they mention Christian persecutions. That does not prove Biblical claims, if anything it shows they are false. The Romans were happy to believe most things, but note they clearly didn't recognise the things the Christians reckoned Jesus and God did. You'd think that if Roman's had documented the powers of "God" they'd be reluctant to persecute his followers - yes?

5th - Most of the writers above wrote some years after the theoretical events of Jesus and his resurrection. It doesn;t mean Jesus didn't exist, but it doesn't verify the exceptional claims made about him - since Christians were spreading and building their own religious mythos. They says "Christus was crucified" - which likely happened. Doesn't offer a shred of evidence hw rose again.