The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[Vianne]

Saying the Bible is true because it discusses real people and places isn't enough evidence to prove it is true.

The book "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", by Victor Hugo, mentions real places in the city of Paris, France, a real city. He mentions the cathedral Notre Dame, several real and notorious prisons, a real uprising that happened in one of them, and a few political figures that did exist, such as the King and one of his cardinals. He describes in detail the architecture of Notre Dame and the inner workings of the church there.

Do we believe the story, therefore? No. Real places and events are not necessarily proof of the validity of a story. There are far too many errors in the Bible to make me believe it was written by anything but people. I will be glad to share them if anyone is interested.

Vianne

[Lotan]

As a Christian I found Thomas' writings to reinforce my belief even though left out of the canon. I don't know why it was left out of the canon, but don't immediately jump to the conclusion that it was for nefarious reasons.

Heresy!
Thomas wasn't just suggesting that we should try to be like Jesus. He was suggesting that we could be exactly like Jesus. Irenaeus understood that in order for Christianity to survive some limits on orthodoxy had to be set. Thomas' doctrine didn't fit the plan, because if we can all be just like Jesus, we don't need Jesus anymore. John's gospel presented no such problem. His writings on the subject, "The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called (also called Adversus Haereses) were an important resource to the later church fathers when the final form of the NT canon was agreed upon.

While we're at it, here's a bit about apostolic succession, from The Development of the Canon of the New Testament:

"The oldest lists of bishops also were countermeasures against the Gnostics, who said that they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself. Against such statements Irenaeus maintains that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles - and none of them was a Gnostic - and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of the Scriptures. With these lists of bishops the later doctrine of "the apostolic succession" of the bishops could be linked."

Oh yeah, what about the "This generation shall not pass away..." stuff? Wasn't that a bit of a fib?

Don't give up yet.

I won't hold my breath!
Seriously though, there are just way too many unanswered questions regarding the authorship of the gospels (let alone their historical accuracy) to take them at face value. We have barely scratched the surface in our conversation. You can believe, as a matter of faith, that they are true accounts, but reason will not permit that conclusion. I'm finding that many of the debates in this forum, if not all of them, eventually boil down to faith vs reason.

Scholarly consensus accepts Josephus' reference to Jesus and James. There is some interpolation found in the Jesus reference, but after eliminating the obvious interpolation, the scholars accept the passage that speaks of Jesus' existence, that he was considered a miracle worker, and he had a following that continued after his death.

I have no problem with that, although Jesus was only one of many messianic wannabes who performed 'startling deeds'. I guess that's another thread.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Richie,
Buddha did not teach that he was a god.But he taught concepts like reincarnation. Did he lie on that aspect?Mohammed did not claim that he was god,but claimed that he was a prophet.Did he lie?

If convincing people is the criteria mohammed too did an equal job.His religion has a billion followers today.His religion too lasts for 1500 years.

"So hes a nice guy,he would not have lied" argument doesnt prove anything. There are too many nice guys in history.Searching for existence of jesus can be pursued by you.No problem.But is that going to hinder your logical vaildation of his claims?

[richic]

If convincing people is the criteria mohammed too did an equal job.His religion has a billion followers today.His religion too lasts for 1500 years.
?

I agree and I wouldn't deny any of Mohammad's claims. Mohammad's edicts on how people should conduct themselves are very positive, other than some of the violent stuff. I would need to study more about the origins or Islam. What I know is Mohammad says he received his calling through the angel Gabriel and Islam makes a claim to a direct connection back to Abraham just like Christianity. Islam also recognizes Christ's existence which adds another billion people to the 2 billion or so who already believe he existed.

"So hes a nice guy,he would not have lied" argument doesnt prove anything. There are too many nice guys in history.Searching for existence of jesus can be pursued by you.No problem.But is that going to hinder your logical vaildation of his claims?

I think a bigger problem for this proof is that we can only use scholarly references which are historical. You require absolute proof, but the scholars can only provide us a consensus view of a particular historical question. If you could accept the consensus at each phase of the proof, then I think it's probable that a strong case can be made for Jesus as God.

That's why I thought in the beginning you would want some sort of physical proof that you could see with your own eyes. That's what convinced the sceptics in Jesus' time.

[richic]

Heresy!
Thomas wasn't just suggesting that we should try to be like Jesus. He was suggesting that we could be exactly like Jesus. Irenaeus understood that in order for Christianity to survive some limits on orthodoxy had to be set. Thomas' doctrine didn't fit the plan, because if we can all be just like Jesus, we don't need Jesus anymore. John's gospel presented no such problem. His writings on the subject, "The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called (also called Adversus Haereses) were an important resource to the later church fathers when the final form of the NT canon was agreed upon.

I think you might be stretching the interpretation of Thomas, and its ambiguity might be one of the reasons it wasn't used. I also don't have a problem for the early Church to cannonize its key scriptures. I would want them to set in stone that which was irrefutable in the Christian traditions. I would also expect them to leave out that which was not attested to by the majority of eyewitnesses.

Seriously though, there are just way too many unanswered questions regarding the authorship of the gospels (let alone their historical accuracy) to take them at face value. We have barely scratched the surface in our conversation. You can believe, as a matter of faith, that they are true accounts, but reason will not permit that conclusion. I'm finding that many of the debates in this forum, if not all of them, eventually boil down to faith vs reason.

I agree. But I think we can use consensus historical analysis and make some progress.

I have no problem with that, although Jesus was only one of many messianic wannabes who performed 'startling deeds'. I guess that's another thread.

http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

In this analysis the writer tries is showing that Jesus was unique in his time. There weren't as many Messianic wannabes as we might think,.

[Lotan]

I also don't have a problem for the early Church to cannonize its key scriptures. I would want them to set in stone that which was irrefutable in the Christian traditions. I would also expect them to leave out that which was not attested to by the majority of eyewitnesses.

I don't think that that is how the canon was decided upon. Each tradition considered their particular scripture(s) to be key. If a particular writing could be shown to be the authentic production of one of the apostles, then why would their 'eyewitness testimony' be ignored? Irenaeus had a lot to do with setting the orthodoxy that later produced the NT canon. Not to mention that many of those writings were known to be forgeries even then.

In this analysis the writer tries is showing that Jesus was unique in his time. There weren't as many Messianic wannabes as we might think,.

Awesome article!!!
You can't imagine how refreshing it is to see someone from your side of the fence quote real bible scholars for a change. I've only had time to read through it once, quickly, but I'm already half-convinced about the shortage of wannabes. Being a skeptic, I'll have to double check. I'm not sure how the multiple attestation of Jesus' healings and exorcisms affects the reliablility of the gospels as a source of historical information, but I'll be sure to comment when I've had more time to consider the article more fully.
Incidentally, I don't doubt that Jesus did perform healings and exorcisms. Until relatively recent times faith healing was the best medicine available.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

[I agree and I wouldn't deny any of Mohammad's claims. Mohammad's edicts on how people should conduct themselves are very positive, other than some of the violent stuff. I would need to study more about the origins or Islam. What I know is Mohammad says he received his calling through the angel Gabriel and Islam makes a claim to a direct connection back to Abraham just like Christianity. Islam also recognizes Christ's existence which adds another billion people to the 2 billion or so who already believe he existed.

"

I think a bigger problem for this proof is that we can only use scholarly references which are historical. You require absolute proof, but the scholars can only provide us a consensus view of a particular historical question. If you could accept the consensus at each phase of the proof, then I think it's probable that a strong case can be made for Jesus as God.

That's why I thought in the beginning you would want some sort of physical proof that you could see with your own eyes. That's what convinced the sceptics in Jesus' time.[/quote]

There are so many scholarly references to mohammeds claims.That doesnt make it true right?And even if he accepted jesus, do you accept his version of jesus?If you dont, was mohammed a liar then?

There was never any consensus on any religion.Always we had skeptics speaking against and believers speaking for claims of a religion.Thus based on miracles and claims we cannot come to any reasonable conclusion.

[richic]

There are so many scholarly references to mohammeds claims.That doesnt make it true right?And even if he accepted jesus, do you accept his version of jesus?If you dont, was mohammed a liar then?

There was never any consensus on any religion.Always we had skeptics speaking against and believers speaking for claims of a religion.Thus based on miracles and claims we cannot come to any reasonable conclusion.

My impression of Mohammad, though, was that he never conducted any supernatural acts. His supernatural event was receiving direction, alone from an angel and then he acted on it. He seems more akin to a Moses, or Daniel.

Jesus, we are told, went around for a couple of years performing exorcisms and other miracles in plain sight of many eyewitnesses. His existence is so troubling to so many systems of thought that it's natural he is redefined or rejected.

Accounting for Jesus is a big issue for Islam. There's no way he's the Son of God, otherwise you wouldn't need a Mohammad. The Son of God is superior to a Prophet so Jesus needed to be repositioned as an equal, or lesser and since he was older than Mohammad, Mohammad's prophecy would be the most recent and most relevant.

Christianity is outlawed in most Muslim nations which means the religion is setting the policy for the state. I think this could be expected since so much of their religion is based on personal conduct so it easily transfers to the Laws of the country.

In most nations with a lot of Christians there is a separation of Church and State. Jesus may have been one of the first to promote this co-existence when he said 'Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, render to God what is God's'. In the process of this separation you get freedom for other religions which is considered a socially positive state of affairs.

I agree there isn't consensus on a religion, but there's consensus on things like 'Who wrote this document', 'Is this wording authentic', 'This document was written on 'x' date'. All these things could help us get to the point where we could say that a certain religious figure's claims of being supernatural are plausible.

Now if you categorically reject the possibility of the supernatural then the dabate would end there.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

My impression of Mohammad, though, was that he never conducted any supernatural acts. His supernatural event was receiving direction, alone from an angel and then he acted on it. He seems more akin to a Moses, or Daniel.Jesus, we are told, went around for a couple of years performing exorcisms and other miracles in plain sight of many eyewitnesses. His existence is so troubling to so many systems of thought that it's natural he is redefined or rejected.Accounting for Jesus is a big issue for Islam. There's no way he's the Son of God, otherwise you wouldn't need a Mohammad. The Son of God is superior to a Prophet so Jesus needed to be repositioned as an equal, or lesser and since he was older than Mohammad, Mohammad's prophecy would be the most recent and most relevant.

Christianity is outlawed in most Muslim nations which means the religion is setting the policy for the state. I think this could be expected since so much of their religion is based on personal conduct so it easily transfers to the Laws of the country.

In most nations with a lot of Christians there is a separation of Church and State. Jesus may have been one of the first to promote this co-existence when he said 'Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, render to God what is God's'. In the process of this separation you get freedom for other religions which is considered a socially positive state of affairs.

I agree there isn't consensus on a religion, but there's consensus on things like 'Who wrote this document', 'Is this wording authentic', 'This document was written on 'x' date'. All these things could help us get to the point where we could say that a certain religious figure's claims of being supernatural are plausible. Now if you categorically reject the possibility of the supernatural then the dabate would end there.

There is consesnus on "Is this wording authentic?"--News to me.Muslims dont accept many words in bible that differ from quran as authentic. Christians never accept quran as authentic. Both of you never accept hindu,buddhist and zorastrian texts as authentic. All these are contrary to each other. So how can you say that there is consensus on wordings? All the problems arise only with wordings.

Also there isnt consensus in who wrote the document also.Christians will say that mohammed wrote quran,but muslims will say that allah himself told quran. Also hindu texts say that god himself wrote hindu vedas. So are you willing to accept these claims?

So now there isnt any consensus on anything. So what sort of conclusion will you come to?And also I dont have any problems in accepting supernatural events if you can logically prove that they can happen or have happened.Asking for scientific proof is natural here,but I know that you wont have any.Also asking sceintific proof for unscientific things are improper.If you can logically prove them, I will be more than happy.

[richic]

So now there isnt any consensus on anything. So what sort of conclusion will you come to?And also I dont have any problems in accepting supernatural events if you can logically prove that they can happen or have happened.Asking for scientific proof is natural here,but I know that you wont have any.Also asking sceintific proof for unscientific things are improper.If you can logically prove them, I will be more than happy.

When I'm talking about consensus, I'm talking about biblical scholars, not true believers. These biblical scholars need to use sound practices of analysis or they are rejected by their peers. They are primarily historians and linguists, but that's all we have because the source documents we'd like to put under the microscope don't exist and the eyewitnesses are dead. Very little from that ime period has survived wear and tear. Ink fades, paper dries up.

What they did was to recopy the texts as they were handed down from generation to generation. So the earliest known 'source document' will be a copy and it may have been copied many times.

My guess is that in that day and age they were very careful on the accuracy of their work, since any mistakes would be lost forever to future generations. This was a very important job. Also any document that did not conform to the general belief at that time would be rejected out of hand. In Christianit's case since it grew so rapidly, I think it would be difficult to change the story since there would be so many people aware of what the original apostles claimed.

Academics are comfortable working in this environment, why should we reject their conclusions just because we don't have absolute certainty?

They are able to spot things like the Christian interpolations added to Josephus' history. Josephus would not have said Christ rose from the dead because he was a practising Jew who rejected Christianity. But it is reasonable to accept that he said Christ existed. The academics concurred on this.

I agree this tells us nothing about the proof of what Jesus did, but it does provide a supporting leg towards that goal.