How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?

Do you believe Abraham existed ,
Do you believe Jehuda the son Jacob existed.
Do you believe King David existed ?
Do you believe Herod the great existed ?
Do you believe Akiba existed ?
Click to expand...

Abraham is most likely a mythological figure. If there really was an Abraham then it's certain that his life didn't go down as depicted in the bible, humans just don't live that long. Jacob is another in this category.

While there was a Hebrew kingdom in the area, albeit a rather small one, the King David depicted in the bible is another myth. No record of him outside of the bible and those records aren't exactly sterling.

Herod actually existed, we have records of him and his rule. Interestingly enough though, there's no record of any infanticide under his reign, that's only found in one of the gospels. So we can be fairly certain that it never happened.
 
@MOM --

2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - if you are reasonable.
Click to expand...

Excellent! Care to practice what you preach? I mean, it's not like you can give a valid reason to believe what you do. No, faith is not a valid reason.
 
arauca said:
Roman wanted loyalty to the emperor , and christian were not loyal, but were loyal to their faith in Christ .
The lac of loyalty created a weakness to the empire
Click to expand...
Which doesn't, in any way, explain fear. :rolleyes:
 
Arioch said:
@MOM --



Excellent! Care to practice what you preach? I mean, it's not like you can give a valid reason to believe what you do. No, faith is not a valid reason.
Click to expand...
Actuall you are very wrong.

Biblical scholarship depends very much on science. History, Archeology, Anthropology, are used extensively to verify biblical accounts. Scientists use a range of tools that can allow them to pinpoint quite accurately who wrote what and when. Philosophical treatises from ancient civilisations are used to cross reference and check biblical accounts. As all science depends upon inductive thinking, then the process of accurately determining the veracity of scripture is an ongoing scientific persuit. So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts. There is a plethora of sources available on the Internet. Here's just one sample - The relevance of Archeology to the study of scripture.. One probably needs less 'faith' now than one did a thousand years ago!

http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/archaeology.htm
 
Mind Over Matter said:
People also believe Caesar existed because they have faith in human testimony...
Click to expand...
Still not understanding?
We have more than back-dated claims to verify Caesar's existence. We have more than simple "testimony".
We have NO evidence that Jesus existed.
 
arauca said:
Do you have any evidence Manco Copac existed ?
Do we have evidence Athahualpa existed ?
How about Americo Vespucio , Caboto. were they around ?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. How do any of these support the existence of Jesus?

Mind Over Matter said:
Actuall you are very wrong.
Click to expand...
Nope.

So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts.
Click to expand...
Cherry-picking. The evidence supports some portions of the Bible.
Not, by any means, all of it. And none for the existence of Jesus.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Still not understanding?
We have more than back-dated claims to verify Caesar's existence. We have more than simple "testimony".
We have NO evidence that Jesus existed.
Click to expand...
Most Western historians agree that there was such a person as Jesus, and he is mentioned in Roman documents of the period, least of all by the Jewish historian Josephus.

Still not understanding?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Which doesn't, in any way, explain fear. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you would be in power would you not require loyalty or support . If a society will be loyal . would you trust such segment of the society .
So what would you cal that, beside mistrust ?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Really?


Josephus, being born four years after Jesus supposedly died would have been working from second-hand accounts, no?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833150&postcount=47


Oh dear.
Click to expand...
If you want to end the discussion for now and "agree to disagree", that is fine. But I am unclear on why you think some things. For instance, why do you think there is more evidence for Caesar than Jesus? You haven't given me any books you've actually read considering evidence for Christianity. If none, then you are not really justified in saying there is not evidence for it. If you would like to consider some evidence, you can look into stuff by NT Wright The Resurrection of the Son of God, and at the popular level The Case for Christ, or Craig's The Son Rises or Wright's Surprised by Hope (chapters 3 and 4). I am not worried about you discrediting faith (though your concern is very polite), because I don't think you can. I have considered the evidence pro and con and think the evidence for the Jesus to be remarkably good. History does not allow certainty, but Jesus seems to be one of the best documented people of antiquity.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
If you want to end the discussion for now and "agree to disagree", that is fine.
Click to expand...
Huh?

For instance, why do you think there is more evidence for Caesar than Jesus?
Click to expand...
Because there is contemporary evidence for Caesar, hard evidence, not just accounts written later based on believer's stories. Any "evidence" for Jesus was written afterwards.

If none, then you are not really justified in saying there is not evidence for it.
Click to expand...
Then present the evidence. All you keep doing is making claims.

I have considered the evidence pro and con and think the evidence for the Jesus to be remarkably good.
Click to expand...
Because you believe.

History does not allow certainty, but Jesus seems to be one of the best documented people of antiquity.
Click to expand...
Wrong. As has been shown MANY times.
 
arauca said:
If you would be in power would you not require loyalty or support . If a society will be loyal . would you trust such segment of the society .
So what would you cal that, beside mistrust ?
Click to expand...
Another failure.
Who mentioned "mistrust"?

arauca said:
O dear
Why would the Russian people believe ." Napoleon invade Russia and Moscow was burned down
You just pick and chose what you want to believe to reinforce your position
Click to expand...
Still not getting it, are you?
Napoleon was documented AT the time. Jesus wasn't.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Biblical scholarship depends very much on science. History, Archeology, Anthropology, are used extensively to verify biblical accounts. Scientists use a range of tools that can allow them to pinpoint quite accurately who wrote what and when. Philosophical treatises from ancient civilisations are used to cross reference and check biblical accounts.
Click to expand...

Historiography, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy are all soft sciences.


As all science depends upon inductive thinking, then the process of accurately determining the veracity of scripture is an ongoing scientific persuit. So far, all the evidence gathered by these various disciplines supports biblical accounts.
Click to expand...

Really?


Mind Over Matter said:
History does not allow certainty, but Jesus seems to be one of the best documented people of antiquity.
Click to expand...

No amount of historiography, archaeology, anthropology or philosophy can prove the divinity of Jesus, nor the exclusivity of the Catholic Church.

Even if there would be reasonable historiographical proof that Jesus existed, this still does doesn't mean that he was divine or that the Catholic Church is the one and only right one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top