Lord, liar, lunatic, legend?

[Ben Kenobi]

How do you decide?

This is a really good question. Remember I wasn't always a Christian. For me, it worked like this.

1. Certain claims are central to the Christian faith.
2. If these are in fact true, we can be reasonably sure that the details are more likely to be correct then not.
3. Rely on the source documents whenever possible.

What I found is this.

1. We have more manuscripts of the bible, and older copies then of any other historical source from the time period. This means we can be more sure that the current copy of the bible we have right now is closer to the original, than any other source from that time.

What this means, is if we are willing to accept other historical truths from that periord, than we ought to accept Scripture as accurate first. The choices are either scripture is accurate, and these other accounts are accurate, or scripture is inaccurate, and so are these other documents.

That brings me to the fundamental truths of Christianity.

1. Christianity claims that Jesus Christ existed, that he came to earth as a man, and that he was the Son of God.
2. The Son of God was crucified, and resurrected on the third day.
3. Christ established his church to preach the Gospel over the entire world.

1 is well documented in scripture. The Gospel account shows how he performed miracles throughout, and how the Jews wanted to stone him.

2. Christ died and was buried into the tomb. The account of the resurrection, the Jews argued that the tomb was empty. This left two possibilities. 1, that the followers of Christ broke into the tomb and stole the body, or he resurrected from the dead. I cannot see why the desciples would steal the body. They believed that Christ was the messiah, and they all believed he was dead, and that everything was over after the crucifixion. They had given up on Christ and his mission.

Faith. While I can understand your Faith, I'm just saying just because you claim there were eye witnesses, that really doesn't prove anything. It could have been the greatest hoax ever pulled off.

Compare that to an account several hundred years after his death. Which is more likely to be accurate, all else being considered equal? No, it doesn't guarantee truth, but it's a measure of confidence.

[rah]

That brings me to the fundamental truths of Christianity.

These are not proven truths, they are accepted as faith.

You choose to believe. That does not make them truths. That's the only point I'm trying to make. So when you repeat these, you are not repeating truths, you're repeating your beliefs. Others decide if they want to believe like you or believe something else. I grew up a catholic, in their school system, so there was no shortage of indoctrination. I can not reconcile those beliefs with the world around me so I choose not to believe them completely. This does not make me wrong, it just shows my lack of faith in what I was taught.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Did I just see CivNation online?

[Ben Kenobi]

You choose to believe. That does not make them truths.

Fundamental in the sense that a house rests upon it's foundations, in the same way Christianity stands on these truths.

If they are false, then so is Christianity. That is all I am saying. This is why I started by examining the statements which are most important to Christianity first rather then more peripheral statements.

I can not reconcile those beliefs with the world around me so I choose not to believe them completely. This does not make me wrong, it just shows my lack of faith in what I was taught.

I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was simply describing how I came to the conclusion that these were right. In a sense, I was not willing to give up these other beliefs along with rejecting Christianity. I could not do as Neitzsche did and reconcile with the abyss.

Perhaps I will be proven to be wrong, and all the Gospels, as you say, completely false rubbish. That is what takes Faith, to acknowledge that there is a great deal we do not know and yet we must all make a decision. When you talk about 'Faith', it is Faith that in which I choose. The evidence stands and falls by itself.

[Sirotnikov]

This left two possibilities. 1, that the followers of Christ broke into the tomb and stole the body, or he resurrected from the dead. I cannot see why the disciples would steal the body.

So if you see no reason someone would have to steal his body, it makes perfect sense that instead something utterly magical, incredible and unreasonable occurred. Something that didn't happen before and never occurred since. All because you're not creative enough to seek an ulterior motive.

Let's consider this example:
My dad showed me a coin trick. I see no reason he would lie to me (I'm his son!) so he must posses real magical powers. QED.

[Japher]

So if you see no reason someone would have to steal his body, it makes perfect sense that instead something utterly magical, incredible and unreasonable occurred. Something that didn't happen before and never occurred since. All because you're not creative enough to seek an ulterior motive.

I think rising from the dead is much more creative than some stupid ulterior motive.

[Ben Kenobi]

So if you see no reason someone would have to steal his body, it makes perfect sense that instead something utterly magical, incredible and unreasonable occurred.

Is your suggestion that someone who wasn't a disciple would steal the body? How did they do so in such a way as to leave the wrappings intact?

[BlackCat]

1. We have more manuscripts of the bible, and older copies then of any other historical source from the time period. This means we can be more sure that the current copy of the bible we have right now is closer to the original, than any other source from that time.

What this means, is if we are willing to accept other historical truths from that periord, than we ought to accept Scripture as accurate first. The choices are either scripture is accurate, and these other accounts are accurate, or scripture is inaccurate, and so are these other documents.

I do think that there are similiar amounts of scriptures describing egyptian, greek, and roman gods - especially if you take into account, the wast amount of such that the christian church has destroyed.

Does that mean that these scriptures are accurate ?

BTW, several scriptures contradicting the current version was rejected and considered herecy by vote.

While "democracy" can be good, it's not very reliable when you try to determine if something is true or not.

[Japher]

So you're saying early fanfic ruined the credibility of the Bible?! That there weren't people who would benefit by Jesus not be Christ? Absurd. You chose not to believe, I'll chose to believe and we'll all live happily ever after... 'cept you of course you, no immortality for you!

[Sirotnikov]

I think rising from the dead is much more creative than some stupid ulterior motive.

Is that why they're called creationists?

[loinburger]

'cept you of course, no immortality for you!

Huzzah!

[rah]

That's all I can ask. It's when people push their faiths as truths is when I have a problem.
If you tell me you believe Jesus was the son of God, fine. But if you tell me it's proven that he was, I'll just laugh because there is no proof. (But I'll concede that there is no proof that he wasn't)

[KrazyHorse]

Has anybody discussed the zombie jesus hypothesis yet?

28 centuries later....

[rah]

If that's what you believe, I'll respect it

[Ben Kenobi]

I do think that there are similiar amounts of scriptures describing egyptian, greek, and roman gods - especially if you take into account, the wast amount of such that the christian church has destroyed.

We can only go on the manuscript evidence we do have, not on what might have been there. It's a simple argument, the more copies, the more we can be sure that the copy is accurate to the original. The fewer copies, the less we can be sure that the copies we possess are accurate to the original, and the less reliable the documentary evidence.

This is why archaeology is so important. If we were to find one original dating back to 100 AD, that would double the total. I don't think you realise how fortunate we are to get anything passed down from more then a thousand years ago of anything, let alone scripture.

BTW, several scriptures contradicting the current version was rejected and considered herecy by vote.

Which documents do you refer to?

While "democracy" can be good, it's not very reliable when you try to determine if something is true or not.

Are you talking about the OT or the NT Canon?