Do You Believe Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead? (Poll)

I wouldn't say that said hatemongers are abusing Christianity for their own ends. On the contrary, I'm sure Fred Phelps and co. are very strong believers in the Bible; I don't get any impression of insincerity. Their hatred seems genuine.Funky_Llama

I wouldn't say that said hatemongers are abusing Christianity for their own ends. On the contrary, I'm sure Fred Phelps and co. are very strong believers in the Bible; I don't get any impression of insincerity. Their hatred seems genuine.Funky_Llama

Well, perhaps "abusing" might be the wrong word, as you're right that it does carry with it the notion of intent... but either way, my point is that the Bible says what it says. That some people find in it such repulsive ideas such as that God hates sinners (in the emotional sense of the word) or that those who die will be tortured forever does not mean that it actually says this, or that the things that Jesus says in the Gospel should be thrown out. There's a lot of profound stuff in there if you don't approach it in the fashion that certain adherents of Christianity tell you to.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I wouldn't say that said hatemongers are abusing Christianity for their own ends. On the contrary, I'm sure Fred Phelps and co. are very strong believers in the Bible; I don't get any impression of insincerity. Their hatred seems genuine.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I wouldn't say that said hatemongers are abusing Christianity for their own ends. On the contrary, I'm sure Fred Phelps and co. are very strong believers in the Bible; I don't get any impression of insincerity. Their hatred seems genuine.GabuEx

Well, perhaps "abusing" might be the wrong word, as you're right that it does carry with it the notion of intent... but either way, my point is that the Bible says what it says. That some people find in it such repulsive ideas such as that God hates sinners (in the emotional sense of the word) or that those who die will be tortured forever does not mean that it actually says this, or that the things that Jesus says in the Gospel should be thrown out. There's a lot of profound stuff in there if you don't approach it in the fashion that certain adherents of Christianity tell you to.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I wouldn't say that said hatemongers are abusing Christianity for their own ends. On the contrary, I'm sure Fred Phelps and co. are very strong believers in the Bible; I don't get any impression of insincerity. Their hatred seems genuine.Genetic_Code

The word "hate" as it appears in the Bible is perhaps one of the most misunderstood words in the whole text. In our modern English interpretation of the word, it carries with it a harsh and negative emotional connotation. That's not at all the sense that is intended by the original language, however. When it says that God "hates" those who do wrong, the sense is much more one of preference or priority. It is simply saying that God distances himself from those people and does not embrace them, as they are doing things that they must stop. There is no true emotional hate described in the text - if it was, then God would surely subject sinners to timoria - vengeful punishment whose sole purpose is to cause suffering - rather than kolasis, corrective punishment with the intent to improve the one receiving it (the latter being the word used in the original Greek to describe the punishment sinners are subjected to after death).

And as for the question of whether homosexuality is deemed as a sin in the Bible, I don't believe that that's the case. The popular verse in Leviticus is the only real direct condemnation of homosexuality (and even then it's only homosexual sex), and that must be viewed in its proper historical context - at the time, the Israelites had just been released from captivity, and they seriously needed to procreate and increase their numbers, or else they were in very real danger of being wiped off the face of the Earth. It was not so much the act of homosexual sex that was the problem, but the failure to procreate. Many others have correctly noted that many other verses in Leviticus are no longer applicable today, and that verse is one of them.

What about the 'how do you know what stuff is there is valuable and profound and what stuff isn't' objection?Funky_Llama

Well, that's entirely personal, and something one can only find out for himself. But I can say that my personal experience has found that following Jesus' words as best as I can certainly has brought an increased and deeper level of happiness on Earth - for that reason, I would follow them even if I strongly believed that there was no God and no afterlife.

I agree, in fact, with the fundamentalists when they say that God will not force people to abstain from sin. And I agree with them that people are given the full ability to find their own path in life. The point where I disagree is where they implicitly assert that God will simply give up in his desire to bring people to the light if they go astray and to bring them together in love. A truly loving father does not place a "best before" date on his forgiveness for a son or daughter who has done him wrong if they truly understand what they did and are truly regretful as a result.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I wouldn't say that said hatemongers are abusing Christianity for their own ends. On the contrary, I'm sure Fred Phelps and co. are very strong believers in the Bible; I don't get any impression of insincerity. Their hatred seems genuine.Genetic_Code

Someone who uses Hate to pass judgement on others is not following Christ's teachings. The main argument that I find Atheists to use is what Christians have done in the world. Groups of ppl who claim to be Believers that spread Hate with their own twisted views of the Holy Scripture. We are not to judge since we ourselves are not without sin. There is a very fine line from teaching ppl what is right and what is wrong compared to mistreating and condemning ppl for what they do. If a man rapes a woman can he be forgiven? I don't know the answer to that, but although I find that act to be a horrible sin I would never say to that man that GOD hates him for the act he's done. The reason for that is because I don't believe that God or Jesus Christ hates anyone, but rather GOD hates the Sin. With that being said I also believe that there arefar more righteous groups of Believers (Christians) in the world than those who use scripture to spread Hate. It's written many times over in both the Old and New testament that GOD despises immoral sexuality. Whether that's rape, someone who abuses children or adultery. That doesn't mean that GOD hates the person just the sin, but since we are given free will we will be judged for the things we do.

And this is what I don't get. I've never seen a true blood christian that never sin and follow the path that the bible sent out. It's like 85% of christians seem to go to church and act like they don't sin. But it seems to me that they go to church, act like they got the holy ghost, the saved them and whatnot, then soon they get out of church, they go right back to doing that same sin. That one of the reasons why I decided to go atheist because I've notice that a good genuine amount of christians are more hypocrits than authentic. At least I don't have to classify myself with such rules. And if God, the being of PURE righteous, hate homosexual, doesn't that make him no different considering he was the one who made us who we are?tocool340

There certainly are a lot of people that tend to preach some rather strange stuff when viewed logically, but I don't think that should affect what religion one adheres to. There are hypocrites in every single walk of life; it's just that when you live in a country that is mostly Christian, the Christian ones are the most visible.

As for the question of whether God hates homosexual people, see my post two posts up.

Of course! Jesus is clearly a zombie! :o

DJ-Lafleur

I believe in a creator of everything but not any religion on earth so no i do not believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

I believe in reincarnation so everyone rises from the dead ^.^

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]

[QUOTE="judog1"]That's pretty much the whole catholic religion right there.-Sun_Tzu-

No I don't. I believe the tale was just another allegory for the rise of the belief in the Chrisitian God indicating that as long as you keep God, Jesus (representing man) and all your beloved ones in your heart then they can never truly be gone but will always live on in the glory of God's presence for all time. Roughly speaking that is.

I picked yes, because I'm a Christian and that's what I believe. The second option says, "No. People don't rise from the dead!" Well, Jesus wasn't a person. He was and is the Son of God.zeppelin_64

I picked yes, because I'm a Christian and that's what I believe. The second option says, "No. People don't rise from the dead!" Well, Jesus wasn't a person. He was and is the Son of God.zeppelin_64

[QUOTE="zeppelin_64"]I picked yes, because I'm a Christian and that's what I believe. The second option says, "No. People don't rise from the dead!" Well, Jesus wasn't a person. He was and is the Son of God.foxhound_fox

Your comment regarding "little evidence" totally ignores the principles of how the veracity of a historical event is verified. What are you expecting, a Youtube video of Christ's actual resurrection? Maybe some nice still photos, possibly autographed by Christ with a statement of authenticity? There is testimony recorded from eyewitnesses that had everything to lose through persecution as well as non Christian references that support the Christian account with none from the period disputing Christ's resurrection. There is the evidence of millions and millions of changed lives through faith in Christ and obedience to His Word. Your whole argument is based on the false premise that the New Testament authors were lying or deceived. Perhaps you can prove that premise.

When you are finished with that, bring forth the eyewitness testimony and that proves that nothing created everything at the big bang event. Maybe you can provide a video of the actual event as well. Or how about the eyewitness testimony and videos proving that the first life came from non-life.

Atheists and naturalists often speak of the lack of evidence for Christ's resurrection and accept the doctrines of their faith of the accidental creation of everything from nothing and life springing froth from non-life without question. It sure does take a lot of faith to be an atheist or naturalist.:)

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="zeppelin_64"]I picked yes, because I'm a Christian and that's what I believe. The second option says, "No. People don't rise from the dead!" Well, Jesus wasn't a person. He was and is the Son of God.blackregiment

Your comment regarding "little evidence" totally ignores the principles of how the veracity of a historical event is verified. What are you expecting, a Youtube video of Christ's actual resurrection? Maybe some nice still photos, possibly autographed by Christ with a statement of authenticity? There is testimony recorded from eyewitnesses that had everything to lose through persecution as well as non Christian references that support the Christian account with none from the period disputing Christ's resurrection. There is the evidence of millions and millions of changed lives through faith in Christ and obedience to His Word. Your whole argument is based on the false premise that the New Testament authors were lying or deceived. Perhaps you can prove that premise.

When you are finished with that, bring forth the eyewitness testimony and that proves that nothing created everything at the big bang event. Maybe you can provide a video of the actual event as well. Or how about the eyewitness testimony and videos proving that the first life came from non-life.

Atheists and naturalists often speak of the lack of evidence for Christ's resurrection and accept the doctrines of their faith of the accidental creation of everything from nothing and life springing froth from non-life without question. It sure does take a lot of faith to be an atheist or naturalist.:)

Amen

The Bible said it so it must be true. Ha! Good one...nah people don't rise from the dead and Jesus was just some ordinary bloke with a cool name.tofu-lion91

Here a better one that shows the circular reasoning used by many naturalists and non-believers. Scientists say it is so so it must be true. :)

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psa 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]The Bible said it so it must be true. Ha! Good one...nah people don't rise from the dead and Jesus was just some ordinary bloke with a cool name.blackregiment

Here a better one that shows the circular reasoning used by many naturalists and non-believers. Scientists say it is so so it must be true. :)

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psa 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]The Bible said it so it must be true. Ha! Good one...nah people don't rise from the dead and Jesus was just some ordinary bloke with a cool name.blackregiment

Here a better one that shows the circular reasoning used by many naturalists and non-believers. Scientists say it is so so it must be true. :)

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psa 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

Honestly, statements like 'science tells us that all that exists is the natural world' are just wild distortions, and reveal a complete lack of understanding of the distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

Oh, and blackregiment - a response to this - for once - would be nice.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="zeppelin_64"]I picked yes, because I'm a Christian and that's what I believe. The second option says, "No. People don't rise from the dead!" Well, Jesus wasn't a person. He was and is the Son of God.blackregiment

Your comment regarding "little evidence" totally ignores the principles of how the veracity of a historical event is verified. What are you expecting, a Youtube video of Christ's actual resurrection? Maybe some nice still photos, possibly autographed by Christ with a statement of authenticity? There is testimony recorded from eyewitnesses that had everything to lose through persecution as well as non Christian references that support the Christian account with none from the period disputing Christ's resurrection. There is the evidence of millions and millions of changed lives through faith in Christ and obedience to His Word. Your whole argument is based on the false premise that the New Testament authors were lying or deceived. Perhaps you can prove that premise.

When you are finished with that, bring forth the eyewitness testimony and that proves that nothing created everything at the big bang event. Maybe you can provide a video of the actual event as well. Or how about the eyewitness testimony and videos proving that the first life came from non-life.

Atheists and naturalists often speak of the lack of evidence for Christ's resurrection and accept the doctrines of their faith of the accidental creation of everything from nothing and life springing froth from non-life without question. It sure does take a lot of faith to be an atheist or naturalist.:)

Here is R.J. Shafer's checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony vis a vis history:

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

-Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

-When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later?

-What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

-Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others. 6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

For those that are skeptical that there is any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, here is a short video that provides some information on some of the evidence.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/resurrection-of-jesus-christ-video.htm

For those that are skeptical that there is any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, here is a short video that provides some information on some of the evidence.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/resurrection-of-jesus-christ-video.htm

blackregiment

I do not believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I dont believe he existed. -rubybearrubybear751

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]The Bible said it so it must be true. Ha! Good one...nah people don't rise from the dead and Jesus was just some ordinary bloke with a cool name.blackregiment

Here a better one that shows the circular reasoning used by many naturalists and non-believers. Scientists say it is so so it must be true. :)

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psa 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
But see... that's the thing. There is as much evidence to support Jesus' divinty as there is to support he rose from the dead. Which is very close to none. And all that there is, is subjective accounts.

-Sun_Tzu-

Your comment regarding "little evidence" totally ignores the principles of how the veracity of a historical event is verified. What are you expecting, a Youtube video of Christ's actual resurrection? Maybe some nice still photos, possibly autographed by Christ with a statement of authenticity? There is testimony recorded from eyewitnesses that had everything to lose through persecution as well as non Christian references that support the Christian account with none from the period disputing Christ's resurrection. There is the evidence of millions and millions of changed lives through faith in Christ and obedience to His Word. Your whole argument is based on the false premise that the New Testament authors were lying or deceived. Perhaps you can prove that premise.

When you are finished with that, bring forth the eyewitness testimony and that proves that nothing created everything at the big bang event. Maybe you can provide a video of the actual event as well. Or how about the eyewitness testimony and videos proving that the first life came from non-life.

Atheists and naturalists often speak of the lack of evidence for Christ's resurrection and accept the doctrines of their faith of the accidental creation of everything from nothing and life springing froth from non-life without question. It sure does take a lot of faith to be an atheist or naturalist.:)

Here is R.J. Shafer's checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony vis a vis history:

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

-Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

-When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later?

-What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

-Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others. 6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

And it is not wise to totally discount it either, especially when the authors gave their lives rather than recant their faith in the events they were eyewitness to.

The guidelines you posted support the veracity of what the Gospel writers recorded, especially in light of the historical setting, the persecution they endured, and the dramatic change in their attitude and boldness in spreading the Gospel after the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. They went from timid, dispersed, and crushed individuals after the crucifixion, to bold preachers of the Gospel, defying the Jewish authorities, right in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified.

Act 5:24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
Act 5:25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
Act 5:26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Act 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Your comment regarding "little evidence" totally ignores the principles of how the veracity of a historical event is verified. What are you expecting, a Youtube video of Christ's actual resurrection? Maybe some nice still photos, possibly autographed by Christ with a statement of authenticity? There is testimony recorded from eyewitnesses that had everything to lose through persecution as well as non Christian references that support the Christian account with none from the period disputing Christ's resurrection. There is the evidence of millions and millions of changed lives through faith in Christ and obedience to His Word. Your whole argument is based on the false premise that the New Testament authors were lying or deceived. Perhaps you can prove that premise.

When you are finished with that, bring forth the eyewitness testimony and that proves that nothing created everything at the big bang event. Maybe you can provide a video of the actual event as well. Or how about the eyewitness testimony and videos proving that the first life came from non-life.

Atheists and naturalists often speak of the lack of evidence for Christ's resurrection and accept the doctrines of their faith of the accidental creation of everything from nothing and life springing froth from non-life without question. It sure does take a lot of faith to be an atheist or naturalist.:)

blackregiment

Here is R.J. Shafer's checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony vis a vis history:

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

-Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

-When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later?

-What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

-Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others. 6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

And it is not wise to totally discount it either, especially when the authors gave their lives rather than recant their faith in the events they were eyewitness to.

The guidelines you posted support the veracity of what the Gospel writers recorded, especially in light of the historical setting, the persecution they endured, and the dramatic change in their attitude and boldness in spreading the Gospel after the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. They went from timid, dispersed, and crushed individuals after the crucifixion, to bold preachers of the Gospel, defying the Jewish authorities, right in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified.

Act 5:24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
Act 5:25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
Act 5:26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Act 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]The Bible said it so it must be true. Ha! Good one...nah people don't rise from the dead and Jesus was just some ordinary bloke with a cool name.Funky_Llama

Here a better one that shows the circular reasoning used by many naturalists and non-believers. Scientists say it is so so it must be true. :)

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psa 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

Honestly, statements like 'science tells us that all that exists is the natural world' are just wild distortions, and reveal a complete lack of understanding of the distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

Oh, and blackregiment - a response to this - for once - would be nice.

I submit this quote in response, enjoy! :)

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Here a better one that shows the circular reasoning used by many naturalists and non-believers. Scientists say it is so so it must be true. :)

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psa 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

blackregiment

Honestly, statements like 'science tells us that all that exists is the natural world' are just wild distortions, and reveal a complete lack of understanding of the distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

Oh, and blackregiment - a response to this - for once - would be nice.

I submit this quote in response, enjoy! :)

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University

..... I certainly don't think so.. Of the billions of people who have died, we havn't a single piece of evidence of them ever raising from the dead.. Furthermore what little knowledge we have of Jesus's supposed divinity is by supposed eye witness accounts from supersititous people that we can not cross examine..sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It is not healthy to treat eyewitness testimony as infallible evidence...

Here is R.J. Shafer's checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony vis a vis history:

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

-Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

-When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later?

-What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

-Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others. 6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

-Sun_Tzu-

And it is not wise to totally discount it either, especially when the authors gave their lives rather than recant their faith in the events they were eyewitness to.

The guidelines you posted support the veracity of what the Gospel writers recorded, especially in light of the historical setting, the persecution they endured, and the dramatic change in their attitude and boldness in spreading the Gospel after the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. They went from timid, dispersed, and crushed individuals after the crucifixion, to bold preachers of the Gospel, defying the Jewish authorities, right in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified.

Act 5:24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
Act 5:25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
Act 5:26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Act 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

The Bible records over 500 eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Perhaps you can bring forth the evidence from those, living at the time, that disputes the resurrection. Let's keep score. Right now the score is 500 for and 0 against. I will be waiting. :)

The Apostles were biased, biased enough to die for what they saw. They put their lives on the line.

The Apostles and early Christians were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

And it is not wise to totally discount it either, especially when the authors gave their lives rather than recant their faith in the events they were eyewitness to.

The guidelines you posted support the veracity of what the Gospel writers recorded, especially in light of the historical setting, the persecution they endured, and the dramatic change in their attitude and boldness in spreading the Gospel after the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. They went from timid, dispersed, and crushed individuals after the crucifixion, to bold preachers of the Gospel, defying the Jewish authorities, right in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified.

Act 5:24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
Act 5:25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
Act 5:26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Act 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

blackregiment

The Bible records over 500 eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Perhaps you can bring forth the evidence from those, living at the time, that disputes the resurrection. Let's keep score. Right now the score is 500 for and 0 against. I will be waiting. :)

The Apostles were biased, biased enough to die for what they saw. They put their lives on the line.

The Apostles and early Christians were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

There have been some on this thead that have expressed doubt as to whether Jesus even existed, that His existence may be a myth. Here is a short video that addresses that doubt. I hope you find it helpful.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/historical-jesus-video.htm

500 eyewitness accounts, as opposed to thousands of people to whom he preached and who witnessed him over their lifetimes who never saw him rise from the dead. 500 is not that large a number, I could fabricate a story and have 500 eyewitnesses by this time next week. Doesn't it strike you as the least bit suspicious that Jesus appeared ONLY to his followers and told them to go out and spread his word, and that the chosen will just believe you and those who don't are not chosen?

And I love how you call science's reasoning specious and then turn around and say religion's reasoning is not suspect. I won't say science knows everything or even that what it does know isn't subject to change in the form of revision or further extrapolation, but to say that the things that science can't YET explain are proof of it's fallibility and then say that everything from a centuries old book with many unsubstantiated claims and accounts is true is the most specious reasoningof all.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And I have not totally discounted it either. However, I approach eyewitness testimony with extreme skepticism. And I don't see how you can say that R.J. Shafer's guidelines support what the Gospel writers recorded. They were incredibly biased, among other things. And one only has to look at question number four, which asks "4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?". That alone puts the resurrection of Christ under a great deal of scrutiny; so much scrutiny that it requires much more than mere eyewitness testimony and an empty tomb to verify.

-Sun_Tzu-

The Bible records over 500 eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Perhaps you can bring forth the evidence from those, living at the time, that disputes the resurrection. Let's keep score. Right now the score is 500 for and 0 against. I will be waiting. :)

The Apostles were biased, biased enough to die for what they saw. They put their lives on the line.

The Apostles and early Christians were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

Quite the contray. The eyewitness testimony and other evidence such as the dramatic change in the behavior of the Apostles after seeing the resurrected Christ, confirm the veracity of the resurrection account of Jesus Christ by historical standards.

Oh and by the way, while God is a supernatural spirit, He has revealed Himself in the natural world, in His creation, to His chosen people, in historical person of Jesus Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit to change the lives of believers.

I am still waiting for your eyewitness testimony. The score remains 500-0. :)

I am still waiting for your eyewitness testimony. The score remains 500-0. :)blackregiment

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]I am still waiting for your eyewitness testimony. The score remains 500-0. :)Engrish_Major