Originally posted by dj2beckerThe reason professional historians, acting in that capacity, would never claim there was historical evidence in the form of 500 eye witness accounts is because there simply aren't 500 eye witness accounts. You can't even show me 50 of them. Or 10 of them. Neither can these "historians" you keep referring to.
Of course you will say that any historian who believes there is reasonable evidence for the resurrection does so because of their Christian faith and superstition.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo one denies that atheists can become religious, just as religious people can become non-believers. One person's "overwhelming evidence" can be nothing more than an elaborate concoction of assertions to another person.
What about all the atheists who have made it their life ambition to disprove Christianity, who went and studied the evidence with the intention of invalidating it, and became Christians because of the overwhelming evidence they found?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 17
Originally posted by FMFYou are deliberately misinterpreting the claim. Did you bother to read the link I posted? Clearly not.
The reason professional historians, acting in that capacity, would never claim there was historical evidence in the form of 500 eye witness accounts is because there simply aren't 500 eye witness accounts. You can't even show me 50 of them. Or 10 of them. Neither can these "historians" you keep referring to.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou either have 500 eye witness accounts or you don't. People asserting that there are 500 eye witness accounts that they then cannot produce are just playing to the gallery of superstitious people, offering them a fig leaf incorrectly marked 'historical method', and maybe selling books. You are the intended audience for this nonsense; you lap it up; you regurgitate it.
You are deliberately misinterpreting the claim. Did you bother to read the link I posted? Clearly not.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 17
Originally posted by FMFOk let's start with the new testament since it provides the primary historical source
You either have 500 eye witness accounts or you don't. People asserting that there are 500 eye witness accounts that they then cannot produce are just playing to the gallery of superstitious people, offering them a fig leaf incorrectly marked 'historical method', and maybe selling books. You are the intended audience for this nonsense; you lap it up; you regurgitate it.
for information on the resurrection. On what basis do you reject its reliability?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI examined the link and commented on it, you have yet to respond to my comment.
That's rich.
You asked for me to provide possible evidence for reincarnation. I provided a link, to which you had given no indication you have examined.
15 May 17
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou either have 500 eye witness accounts or you don't. Have you withdrawn the claim?
Ok let's start with the new testament since it provides the primary historical source
for information on the resurrection. On what basis do you reject its reliability?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat is your basis for this claim? The New Testament is a set of texts that were written and edited and added to for hundreds of years by many unknown authors before they were 'finalized'. They are therefore a secondary source, and only a primary source in so far as they are evidence of what texts Christians use for the basis of their religion.
Ok let's start with the new testament since it provides the primary historical source
for information on the resurrection.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo it seems you really didn't bother to read the link:
Of course you will say that any historian who believes there is reasonable evidence for the resurrection does so because of their Christian faith and superstition. You don't know this to be a fact yet you choose to believe so. What about all the atheists who have made it their life ambition to disprove Christianity, who went and studied the evidence with t ...[text shortened]... ntion of invalidating it, and became Christians because of the overwhelming evidence they found?
"Because the New Testament
provides the primary historical source
for information on the resurrection,
many critics during the 19th century
attacked the reliability of these biblical
documents.
By the end of the 19th century, however,
archaeological discoveries had
confirmed the accuracy of the New
Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of
early papyri bridged the gap between
the time of Christ and existing
manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly
confidence in the reliability of the
Bible. William F. Albright, who in
his day was the world's foremost
biblical archaeologist, said: "We can
already say emphatically that there is
no longer any solid basis for dating any
book of the New Testament after about
A.D. 80, two full generations before
the date between 130 and 150 given
by the more radical New Testament
critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries,
an abundance of other manu-scripts came to light (over
24,000 copies of early, New Testament
manuscripts are known to be in
existence today). The historian Luke
wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning
the resurrection. Sir William
Ramsay, who spent 15 years
attempting to undermine Luke's
credentials as a historian and to
refute the reliability of the New Testament,
finally concluded: "Luke is a
historian of the first rank.... This
author should be placed along with
the very greatest of historians."
"I claim to be an
historian. My approach
to Classics is historical.
And I tell you that the evidence
for the life, death, and
the resurrection of Christ is
better authenticated than
most of the facts of ancient
history…."
E.M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
15 May 17
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't agree with the copy pasted text that you happen to agree with.
So it seems you really didn't bother to read the link:
"Because the New Testament
provides the primary historical source
for information on the resurrection,
many critics during the 19th century
attacked the reliability of these biblical
documents.
By the end of the 19th century, however,
archaeological discoveries had
confirmed the accuracy of ...[text shortened]... f the first rank.... This
author should be placed along with
the very greatest of historians."
Originally posted by dj2beckerDo you think that E.M. Blaiklock's declaration of his faith in Jesus is a primary source or a secondary source?
"I claim to be an
historian. My approach
to Classics is historical.
And I tell you that the evidence
for the life, death, and
the resurrection of Christ is
better authenticated than
most of the facts of ancient
history…."
E.M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University