Squishes
New member
It's much easier to ascertain the death of 6-10 million people 70 years ago than it is to ascertain the death and disappearance of 1 man 2000 years ago. The two cases are radically different.
toldailytopic: What are the most persuasive evidences that God exists?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
It's much easier to ascertain the death of 6-10 million people 70 years ago than it is to ascertain the death and disappearance of 1 man 2000 years ago. The two cases are radically different.
I don't know why Christians invest in this argument. There are any number of reasons, from cannon to common sense, to believe in the historical Jesus, but it isn't as though were that utterly settled to the atheist's satisfaction that it would alter their point and posit in any meaningful fashion. So there's nothing to be gained from engaging on the point that will amount to anything.
Ted L Glines
New member
When I was a young man, I had nothing better to do than cause problems for others. I even undertook a brief career as an armed robber, a sojourn which ended in a shoot-out with police in Santa Cruz, California. There we we, squared off, and we were 18 feet apart (measurement for the trial). The cop was firing a .357 Magnum, while I had a .45 semi-auto. We were both qualified with our weapons. In court, the cop stated that he was aiming at my upper torso. I was aiming in a similar mode. We were both seriously attempting to take the other one down. I fired six aimed rounds at the cop. He fired five rounds at me. Guess what? Not one of those eleven bullets touched either one of us. If anyone wants to claim that this was blind luck, think again; you do not win the lottery eleven times in a row. Later that night, after I had been booked into the county jail, the cop and I shared a cigarette and talked briefly. We were both stunned at what had happened. Our mutual conclusion was simple: God had said "NO!"
For anyone who craves to challenge the credibility of this story, I think this was in 1959-1960 and it hit the Santa Cruz newspaper (quiet retirement town where excitement never happens). And for those who deny God could/would do that -- open your eyes so you might see.
For anyone who craves to challenge the credibility of this story, I think this was in 1959-1960 and it hit the Santa Cruz newspaper (quiet retirement town where excitement never happens). And for those who deny God could/would do that -- open your eyes so you might see.
Lon
Well-known member
God's revelation in spoken word, creation, the Holy Spirit working, and Jesus Christ.
Not for those who wrote about it in the 50 years that followed the event. Are you claiming that the Holocaust will be in doubt 2000 years from now, because everyone who wrote about it 50 years later are to be counted as suspect?
You know 100 years is a very short amount of time. I've lived over half that amount of time, and it passed rather quickly. 2000 years is only 20 of those time periods. Do you doubt the assassination of Julius Caesar or his existence?
Because God does
"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses."
"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."
The testimony of the Apostles has always had a powerful effect on my beliefs.
Son of Jack
New member
Well, I suppose we will have to disagree on this point. I find the issue of the resurrection and whether it actually happened to powerful and persuasive, especially when coupled with the willingness of the earliest believers/witnesses to die for that belief. I find it highly improbable that a man, knowing that he had believed a lie, to allow himself to be tortured and executed for a stubborn adherence to that belief. Now take that probability and multiply it by at least 500-ish more people. I find the argument rather compelling.
Yep! They are reliable witnesses! :thumb:
"The Testimony of the Evangelists"-Simon Greenleaf
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
Son of Jack
New member
Richard Bauckham has written persuasively in this area more recently.
Here is an interview:
| The Eyewitnesses | |
What scripture is it that commands us to answer empty sleeve arguments with no upside for the leveling party?
What's going on here? I didn't say anything about whether or not anyone finds this compelling. My focus was on the point of defending a historical Jesus when it has no power to move the person making it in any substantive way. That is, if you were to provide a Roman birth certificate and an account of his crucifixion it wouldn't establish the argument of divinity or necessarily move the atheist making the side bar advance, given his objection isn't honestly rooted in the lack of historical record. :mmph:
Not only haven't I suggested anything of the sort, that has nothing to do with meeting every specious "challenge" to the Christian narrative...good grief. :mmph:
The resurrection is the Gospel. It is God's evidence to man that He is.
I must step in here. Even though TH is quite capable of handling his own defense, still, a little help from a friend is a good thing.
TH has never made such an assertion "...that the Gospel is not the power of God unto salvation for the atheist". To the contrary he has painstakingly responded to many of the atheists who post on this site with wise and reasoned rebuttal after rebuttal.
It is unkind of you to bait a fellow Christian.:sigh:
zippy2006
New member
My focus was on the point of defending a historical Jesus when it has no power to move the person making it in any substantive way. That is, if you were to provide a Roman birth certificate and an account of his crucifixion it wouldn't establish the argument of divinity or necessarily move the atheist making the side bar advance, given his objection isn't honestly rooted in the lack of historical record. :mmph:
Which leads one to ask, what is the objection honestly rooted in? Probably few of the apologetic responses given address that root, in fact I think they simply serve to give uncertainty and help open the door to grace (as the historical record does as well). You and Squishes seem to have knocked on that door already. But in the end I think all of the arguments are quite helpful too, I don't mean to undermine them.
:e4e:
Did he not challenge the evidence of the resurrection?
The power of God that leads men to salvation does not come through debating science or philosophy, or human wisdom, but through the Gospel and the Gospel alone.
If we debate evolution to try and convince the lost that God is the source of all life, we destroy God's evidence in favor of our own.
In no particular order:
God Most High's Creation
God Most High's Name
History
God Most High's Prophets
The Lord Jesus Christ
The Body of the Lord Jesus Christ
Three billion plus believers in God Most High*
The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
* The most common argument against this evidence is that it is an argumentum ad populum, or an "appeal to the people." This is incorrect. This evidence is not used as an argument for the existence of God Most High in a vacuum, but in response to the atheist who claims, "There is no evidence for God Most High." They then say, "This is an argumentum ad populum!" No. You (atheist) argued there is no evidence. If you (atheist) are right, then there are zero believers in God Most High; this would be in agreement with your (atheist's) claim that there is no evidence. There are three billion plus believers in God Most High.
People come to the point of possible belief from all points on the compass. I believe TH was advocating for taking some preliminary steps to help those who are in unbelief but wavering, to a place where they can see the light, even if it is ever so dim in the beginning.
It is easy for you and easy for me to make statements of belief because we are believers.
I think of how C. S. Lewis finally saw the light of truth in Christ and he was dumbfounded, at first, by his own belief.
I am willing to walk a long way alongside a questing person and use caution in my responses so as not to enhance their unbelief.
But I agree, it is not my words or my beliefs but that which we find in our Holy Writ that is the final arbiter.
Peace to you my friend, bybee