[soc.religion.christian] inconsistencies concerning the resurrection?

timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) (10/07/90)

In article <Oct.3.23.29.38.1990.2062@athos.rutgers.edu> you write:
>In article <Sep.30.19.56.17.1990.15737@athos.rutgers.edu> 

>In effect you're saying the Resurrection is a historical fact that
>can be *proven.*  

if you're asking for "scientific" proof that it occurred, then can
you "scientifically prove" that napoleon or george washington existed?
(of course not - you must rely on historical accounts)

in courts of law, eyewitness accounts are generally accepted as "proof"
that an event actually occurred.  in Acts 2:32, Peter says: "God has
raised this Jesus to life, and we are *all* witnesses to the fact."
(my emphasis added)

he was speaking to a crowd, and obviously the context of the claim 
included everyone present.  even if he'd been referring to just the
apostles, he was making a very bold claim.  now, if the apostles had
gotten together and concoted a "story" that Jesus had risen from the
dead, when he had not, then the natural question arises: "Why would
these guys DIE for a lie that they'd created?  Especially since they
weren't seeking money or power, and were always in hot water with 
the Jewish hierarchy?"

>I can't honestly decide for the truth of historocity
>of the Resurrection intellectually, its only through faith from the
>heart that I lean towards it.  

do yourself a favor and read a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"
by Josh McDowell.  he was formerly a rabidly-anti-Christian atheist,
until he honestly looked at the evidence.

>The inconsistencies, and alternate

please point these inconsistencies out for me, instead of just
claiming they exist? 

>explanations, as well as mankind's imagination, make an intellectual
>investigation lean against it.

certainly mankind's imagination suggests ways for it to not be true,
but that's only because men don't WANT to believe it's true.

---
Tim	  |	ARPA:  timh@ide.com
Hoogasian |	UUCP:  sun!ide!timh	 	(415) 543-0900 
===============================================================================
#define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts?  I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"

[I wouldn't want to say there's no evidence for the resurrection, but
it's not quite what you'd see in a courtroom.  There's a basic
principle that witnesses should show up in person, so people can
question them and you can make a judgement on their truthfulness.  The
closest to this we come in the NT is Paul, since we're sure about
authorship of most of his letters, and there is enough in them to make
at least some judgement about him.  But it's still not like having him
here.  For the Gospels things are somewhat worse.  We don't know who
wrote them or exactly how direct their sources of information were.
Again, I'm not out to knock the Bible, but saying it's just like a
courtroom witness is a bit naive.  --clh]

cms@gatech.edu (10/18/90)

In article <Oct.6.23.04.13.1990.1574@athos.rutgers.edu>, timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes:
> In article <Oct.3.23.29.38.1990.2062@athos.rutgers.edu> you write:
>>In article <Sep.30.19.56.17.1990.15737@athos.rutgers.edu> 
> 
>>In effect you're saying the Resurrection is a historical fact that
>>can be *proven.*  
> 
> if you're asking for "scientific" proof that it occurred, then can
> you "scientifically prove" that napoleon or george washington existed?
> (of course not - you must rely on historical accounts)
> 
> in courts of law, eyewitness accounts are generally accepted as "proof"
> that an event actually occurred.  in Acts 2:32, Peter says: "God has
> raised this Jesus to life, and we are *all* witnesses to the fact."
> (my emphasis added)

 There are many instances in the New Testament of people giving 
eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection.  Jesus, of course, first 
appeared to the women who came to the tomb to annoint him, and told 
them to witness his resurrection to others.  This was quite unheard of 
as women were not allowed to testify in Jewish courts, another 
indication that Jesus favored equality of women.  At any rate, other 
New Testament examples abound, including 1 John 1:2, "we have seen and 
testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life," etc.  Generally, 
large numbers of people don't claim to be witnesses to an event unless 
they actually were.  Some individuals might, but large numbers of 
people don't.  500 people were witnesses to Christ's Resurrection.  
The terminology being used here is Jewish legal terminology, which is 
fairly typical.

>>I can't honestly decide for the truth of historocity
>>of the Resurrection intellectually, its only through faith from the
>>heart that I lean towards it.  
> 
> do yourself a favor and read a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"
> by Josh McDowell.  he was formerly a rabidly-anti-Christian atheist,
> until he honestly looked at the evidence.

 I read some of Josh McDowell's works and I cannot extol them.  I 
realize a number of people seem very taken by his arguments, but I saw 
him argue rather badly that the Apocrypha were not the word of God 
using very faulty logic.  If his logic is as bad in that area as in 
others, then I question his scholarship, however good his intentions 
in desiring to prove the Resurrection as fact.  In the book I read, he 
was very anti-Catholic, although in the typical condescending way, 
"now, we should be in charity with Catholics, even though they're 
wrong," etc.  Jimmy Swaggart said the same thing and he's the most 
virulent anti-Catholic major preacher I know.

> Tim	  |	ARPA:  timh@ide.com
> Hoogasian |	UUCP:  sun!ide!timh	 	(415) 543-0900 

> [I wouldn't want to say there's no evidence for the resurrection, but
> it's not quite what you'd see in a courtroom.  There's a basic
> principle that witnesses should show up in person, so people can
> question them and you can make a judgement on their truthfulness.  The
> closest to this we come in the NT is Paul, since we're sure about
> authorship of most of his letters, and there is enough in them to make
> at least some judgement about him.  But it's still not like having him
> here.  For the Gospels things are somewhat worse.  We don't know who
> wrote them or exactly how direct their sources of information were.
> Again, I'm not out to knock the Bible, but saying it's just like a
> courtroom witness is a bit naive.  --clh]

 It depends on your point of view.  The Bible, as a whole, is a 
testament, a covenant, a witness of God.  I read a play once in which 
the courtroom drama consisted of a need to prove the Resurrection of 
Christ.  I think the idea was that the defendant was accused of 
failing to obey the law and he had to prove, using the Bible, the 
Talmud, and other Jewish documents that when the Moshiach came, 
certain laws would no longer be enforced or would be transcended in 
favor of the new law which God would establish by his Moshiach.  These 
were produced, his position proven based on the Talmud, and then the 
real drama began in which he had to prove that Jesus was the Moshiach. 
He wanted to use New Testament documents to use their testimony as 
extant affadavits (depositions?) to the Resurrection.  He was 
forbidden to do this and was forced to rely instead on Church 
Tradition.  After Tradition was established, he was able to use 
Tradition to establish the truthfulness of the New Testament, after 
which the New Testament affadavits were introduced as evidence, and 
our hero was saved.  I don't vouch the methods, that was just the 
story.  But it set in my mind the concept that the New Testament 
contains a series of affadavits testifying to the veracity of the 
Resurrection.

-- 
                                   Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
	        	 _///_ //  SPAWN OF A JEWISH       _///_ //
      _///_ //         <`)=  _<<     CARPENTER   _///_ //<`)=  _<<
    <`)=  _<<	 _///_ // \\\  \\   \\ _\\\_   <`)=  _<<    \\\  \\
       \\\  \\ <`)=  _<<             >IXOYE=('>   \\\  \\
                  \\\  \\_///_ //   //  ///   _///_ //    _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms       <`)=  _<<   _///_ // <`)=  _<<   <`)=  _<<
                          \\\  \\<`)=  _<<     \\\  \\     \\\  \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW!                \\\  \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia