Evoloution is a true leap of faith

[mikerunk]

You guys are missing the point. There is no historical proof that says Christ died and was ressurrected three days later. Now the tomb in which Christ was buried in fact has been a subject of debate by many scholors over the years and has never truly been resolved one way or another. This is not proof many people were buried in the same fashion as Christ was. There is no historic piece of evidence that proves that Christ was ressurrected from the grave, or that he even died.

Now some stated they could have just show Christ body if he truly were dead. This is a good argument but there is yet another flaw in it, is that they didn't bury Christ were the romans though they did. That they put his body some where else for fear that the Romans would do something to his body. There is also those who would argue that the whole death and ressurrection was fabricated. Again we have no evidence that proves one way or another that Christ death and ressurrection.

You guys mention the sudden change in eleven men, this does not prove that Christ was ressurrected. There has never been any historical documant or piece of evidence that proves this account. Even if they saw him that doesn't prove he was Ressurrected, it just proves they saw him. The one account that could prove the story is when he asended to heaven but there has never been any evidence or proof that has unfolded that can back up the bibles story. Thus the death and ressurrection becomes a matter of faith. You can't point to any piece of evidence and say this proves the death and ressurrection.

As far as the rise of Christianity in that area and around there world, one could argue that its no different the Wicca, or other religeons found in the World. There was a period of more then 200 years were people were killed for being a witch. Yet the this religeon still stands today. So claim the perssuction of Christanity is proof of the death and ressurrection.

Now a for the people were killed because they stuck to there story and died because of it. Well this again is not evidence that Christ died and was ressurrected. One could argue that Christ never died and that his death and ressurrection were fabricated. That these men and women were duped. Again it is not evidence that proves Christ death and Ressurrection.

At the end of the day what you have is a lot of evidence that points to the death and ressurrection but does not prove the death and ressurrection. It is up to each of use to look at the evidence and decided for are selves what we believe. That is why its called faith and not a fact. You have faith that it is a fact but you have no evidence that proves that it is a fact.

I love how Christians read the bible and yet look at Science that have proven or even come up with evidence that supports there theroy and shuts it down so completely. Evoloution could have occured and may still be occuring. No where in the bible does God say evoloution is not real. No Christian can say they know exactly how God went about creating the universe, the heavens and there earth and life on this planet. I would say any one who can say they know are lying or are frigen nuts. The bible says only that God Created the Heavens and the earth but it doesn't say how he did it. The bible says that God created all life on this planet but it doesn't say how he did it. The reason why is because it wasn't important. God left that up for use to discover on are own, why waste time explain a proceess that we wouldn't completely understand. Now matter how much science advance there will still be things we don't understand.

Now I want to say one thing I will stand corrected on the order in which things take place in the bible. While I have a good grounding on the bible I don't claim to be an expert. So I will admit I was wrong about that.

I do believe in the bible, I do believe in death and ressurrection of Christ. I just want to make that clear.

Edited March 14, 2009 by mikerunk

[Guest shiloh357]

You guys are missing the point. There is no historical proof that says Christ died and was ressurrected three days later.

Yes, but there is evidence. Evidence is not proof. I am not as free and loose with the word "proof"as some people are.

Now some stated they could have just show Christ body if he truly were dead. This is a good argument but there is yet another flaw in it, is that they didn't bury Christ were the romans though they did. That they put his body some where else for fear that the Romans would do something to his body.

I am sorry, but that is really lame. For one thing, they put the body in the grave of Joseph of Arimathea, who was a member of Sanhedrin and a very wealthy man at that. In ancient Israel, public records were kept in the Temple as to the burial sites of families, meaning that the location Arimathea's tomb was on record, making it impossible for someone to get the location wrong.

Secondly the Romans were highly efficient and would have been present at the time the body was placed in the tomb, as they immediately placed a Roman seal on tomb and placed a guard in front of it. These people would not have been so stupid as to guard the wrong grave. You'll have to do better than that.

You guys mention the sudden change in eleven men, this does not prove that Christ was ressurrected.

It is compelling evidence though. These men, after Jesus death, were afraid for their lives. They were cowering in an undisclosed location for fear that they would suffer a similar fate Jesus. They believed that if they showed their face in public, the authorities would lynch them and send them away to be crucified as well.

Upon seeing Jesus for the next 40 days, they talked with him, ate with him and touched Him and they witnessed him ascend into heaven. From that time on, the prospect of death was no longer something they were afraid of. A radical change had taken place in them to cause them to turn 180 degrees from being cowards to courageous men almost welcoming the prospect of death for the sake of their testimony. It takes a radical event to create that kind of radical change.

Thus the death and ressurrection becomes a matter of faith.

For the apostles, it was not a matter of faith. They were not dying for a belief. They were dying for their eyewitness account of having encountered the resurrected Jesus. The onus is on the skeptic to disqualify their testimony.

One could argue that Christ never died and that his death and ressurrection were fabricated. That these men and women were duped.

You could argue it, but it places the onus on you to support it. The fact remains as stated before that Jesus death was attested to by his enemies. Romans were very efficient at killing people. They knew when someone was dead. One of Jesus' own disciples, John as well as Jesus' mother and others were eyewitnesses to his death. The burden falls to the skeptic to prove that they just made the whole thing up. Again, the followers of Jesus, after his resurrection, touched Him, ate with Him, talked to him for 40 days and even saw Him go into heaven. His death and resurrection were undeinable fact.

As Christians, we don't HAVE to prove anything. I can provide evidence, but anyone is free to wave it off in an arrogant dismissive attitude as you have displayed. I can provide the evidence, but I am not responsible for what someone does with the evidence. I have made my choice and I believe the testimony of Scripture. There are those for whom NO weight of evidence would ever be enough. The person who is dead set agaisnt believing will do so regardless of what is presented.

So I am not really concerned with what someone says is or is not "evidence." My job is not to "prove" anything. I simply present the truth of the testimony of Scripture and the available evidence and from that point on, what someone else does with it is their responsibility, not mine.

[Botz]

Hi Mikerunk.

I think the point is that the Bible has proved to be true in every area that it has originally been criticised, there is nothing in it's historical accounts that have ever proven false, and the record of Jesus' life by disciples that knew Him, are historical evidence to His death and ressurection...they are accounts that are more reliable than any other historical writings.

On top of that (and this is something non-believer's and nominal Christian's cannot comprehend) when a person repents and believes in Jesus as the Messiah and his Saviour, G-d does His part, and sends the Holy Spirit to take up residence within that person, and it is the supernatural presence of the Holy Spirit that actually demonstrates the veracity of G-ds words, and the reality of the existence of G-d...a truly remarkable relationship is established, and is as profound as the words of John Newton's Hymn describe..."I ONCE WAS BLIND, BUT NOW I SEE."

We don't have all the answers, the Bible doesn't give all the answers, and as you pointed out, G-d leaves masses for us to discover by ourselves...but how much better will this discovering be if it is done in conjunction with a relationship with the One who created everything in the first place, rather than giving credence to the extra-biblical theories of many self-proclaimed non-Believers, who seek in the wisdom of their ungodly minds to actually attempt to tell the world, not only that G-d is a myth, but that they have the knowledge/science to truly enlighten us.

You mentioned in an earlier post, that we do not know how G-d created living things, but it is recorded that He made Adam and all the animals from the dust of the ground, only Eve came from the side of Adam. It also states that we came from dust and we will return to dust, which is precisely what happens when we decompose. There is absolutely no indication in the biblical account that we gradually evolved from some primordial slime.

I think the hard fact about unbelieving Scientists is:-

1. They do not even attempt to think of G-d...He is left out of all equations.

2. They despise the account in Genesis, as it sounds too fantastic to be true, and is laughable in light of their scientific knowledge....probably put in the same bracket as an elephant standing on the back of a turtle holding up the earth.

3. Because of 1 & 2 they will not even consider the results of Creationists.

[MorningGlory]

The quest for "proof" is a non-believers tactic to discredit our beliefs.

True; every nonbeliever that posts in 'Faith vs Science' talks about 'proof' constantly. They probably don't realize where their agenda comes from....but it's obvious to me.

[Sir Gareth]

As I pointed out earlier there is better manuscript assertation to the events of the New Teastement than there are to the life of Alexander the Great or Julius Ceaser, but no one questions they existed.

The death of Jesus on the cross is almost universally accepted, even by very liberal scholars who try to disprove of the truth of the bible.

The conversion and eyewitness testimony of many people who say, interacted with and were changed forever by the risen Jesu is very compelling evidence, and to me is much more concrete proof than you get in most murder trials than send men to their deaths. Look at the sensationalized case of Scott Peterson, there were no witnesses, there was no concrete evidence only scores and scores of curcimstantial (spelling?) evidence that stacked up to prove him guilty.

In historical scholorship, as in law, we rarely, if ever, have an event that can be proven 100%, scholars look for an explanation that takes into account all the evidence, without having to ignore anything, or force anything to fit where it does not belong.

In the question of what happened after Jesus died, the best 'fitting' answer, which takes into account all the evidence, provides quality explanation and does not force any parts into places they should not be is that Jesus in fact did rise from the dead and appear to his disciples and others for forty days. No other theory accuratly deals with all the evidence without ignoring or forcing some events into place.

[artsylady]

More on writers outside of the NT on the life of Christ.

Interesting.

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_T...tside_the_Bible

[Guest shiloh357]

The other false statement is that the Gospels are supported by considerable archeological and historical evidence.

Actually, there is a lot of archeological and historical evidence.

1. The village Cana where Jesus performed a miracle at a wedding there has been discovered.

2. The Synagogue at Capernaum (Jesus' ministerial headquarters) has been found it was at this synagogue that Jesus taught and healed (Mark 1:21-28, 3:1-6, Luke 4:31-37 and John 6:59).

3. A house church has been uncovered in Capernaum back in 1968 and there is evidence that it may have been the house belonging to Simon Peter.

4. We can correctly locate cities like Nazareth, Bethlehem and Bethsaida (birth place of Andrew, Peter and Phillip). It is mentioned more than any other city except Capernaum in the Gospels. The fishing harbor of Bethsaida finally and fully uncovered back in 1987.

5. Jacob's well where Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4:1-42has been located. The well was located after archeologists identified the north-south road near Mt. Gerazim in eastern Nablus (Shechem).

6. Jericho (not the OT city) of Jesus' day has been found. Herod the Great's winter palace was there. Herod the Great was the Herod of Matthew's birth narrative (Matt. 2:1-12). It is the city where Jesus met Zaccheus (Luke 19:2-10).

7. The Pool of Bethesda, which is in Jerusalem has been found and can be seen by visitors today. Five porticos have been found and are also visible to visitors to the city.

8. The city of Bethany can be visited today. Bethany is mentioned 13 times and was a favorite city of Jesus. His friends, Mary, Martha and Lazarus lived there.

9. In 1961 an inscription bearing the name "Pontius Pilate" was found. It was found on a stone slab that was part of Pilate's dedication of a temple to Tiberius which all historians believe was the Caesar of Rome at the time of Christ's ministry.

10. The family tomb of Caiaphas was found in 1990. His ossuary was uncovered at a first century AD burial site and was dated to around that time. The human bones of two infants, a teen a woman and man were found in the ossuary. Caiaphas was the high priest at Jesus' trial and he is mentioned in Matthew 26:57 and John 18:13-14.

11. Archeologists also know where Caesarea Philippi is located. It is mentioned in Matt. 16:13-20 and Mark 8:27-30. It was the location of a large Palace belonging to Herod Agrippa who is mentioned in Acts: 26: 2-29. It was in ancient times called the "gate of hell" due to the occult practices known to take place there. It is the place of Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus took His disciples to that location and stood at the "gate of hell" and declared the very gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

12. In addition, there is all of the Temple archeology that is going on today. The Temple where Jesus taught, healed, and where He was dedicated as a child, is also historically and archeologically verified. As a side note, archeology is even uncovering evidence of obscure biblical figures in the OT as well. For example, the seal of Baruch, the scribe who worked with Jeremiah, has been found and it even has a partial fingerprint on it to boot.

I could go on and show how not just the gospels, but even the ministry of Paul is verified by history and archeology. To say that the gospels do not have any historical or archeological evidence is simply false.

[nebula]

11. Archeologists also know where Caesarea Philippi is located. It is mentioned in Matt. 16:13-20 and Mark 8:27-30. It was the location of a large Palace belonging to Herod Agrippa who is mentioned in Acts: 26: 2-29. It was in ancient times called the "gate of hell" due to the occult practices known to take place there. It is the place of Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus took His disciples to that location and stood at the "gate of hell" and declared the very gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

That's cool!

[Guest shiloh357]

We obviously need to qualify what we are arguing.

I was responding to your claim that there is NO archeological or historic support for the gospels. I have demonstrated that there is.

Why don't we restate your initial claim?

My "initial" claim??? What claim are you referring to?

Let's say the Gospels accurately represent physical structures and the names of places and people. I can go along with that, but that admission says nothing of the accuracy of faith based claims.

That is not entirely true. If the Bible can be demonstrated to be reliable and accurate with regard to history, then we have platform for trusting what you call "faith-based" claims.

What the Gospels don't do is provide historical evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he performed miracles, that we have an accurate representation of conversation at his trial, or that he rose on the third day. There is no historical record to support any of these claims.

The Bible is an historical record in and of itself.

You are missing one important fact. The disciples (or apostles) were not laying down their lives for "faith-based" claims. They were not dying for something they believed in. They were undergoing persecution, torture and even death for their claim to be eyewitnesses to not only Jesus' ministry, but to His death and they were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. They saw Him, talked to Him, touched Him, and ate with Him for 40 days AFTER His resurrection. Furthermore, they were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ascension into Heaven. They were not dying for a belief, but for something they knew was 100% absolutely true.

Now if these men were simply making this up, there would not have been sufficient impetus or conviction to undergo brutal torture and pain of death for something they could simply admit was not true, forego any further torture, let the movement dissipate and simply fade out into history, never to be heard from again.

So the onus is on you to provide evidence that the apostles were completely lying about what they saw. Peter put it this way:

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard come out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

(2 Peter 1:16-18)

This is another example of an Apostle making an eyewitness claim. Peter is recounting the story of Jesus' transfiguration in Matthew 17. He presents it as eyewitness account.

Now what you need to demonstrate is why the apostles would be so accurate their recollection of historical figures and places, but suddenly become unreliable when they mention that Jesus healed a leper in the same account.

Works of fiction frequently set their characters and plot lines in real locations, and sometimes mention real names and events, to give the story plausibility. Just because the Gospels mention historical landmarks and personages is not a legitimate argument for the associated story being true.

Yes, there are works of historical fiction, but all of us know the difference between a work of fiction that presents itself as fiction, but uses a setting of real events as backdrop, and piece of literature that offers itself as a presentation of a genuine historical account. We have seen movies like "Titanic" that use actual history to tell a story about fictional characters, and we can divorce it from actual historical documentation of the event.

The Bible does not offer itself as a piece of historical fiction. It offers itself as an accurate accounting of the life of Jesus at all points. You cannot, with any credibility reduce the Bible to a work of historical fiction without placing the burden upon yourself to demonstrate conclusively that the events pertaining to the life of Jesus described in tke Gospels were not intended by the apostles to be taken as factual.

If it is your position and contention that the Bible's claims about Jesus' miracles, His virgin birth, his resurrection, etc., are not true, then the onus is on you to provide the evidence that the writers of the Bible were deliberately fraudulent in their claims to have seen his miracles and to have seen Him AFTER His resurrection. If you cannot provide adequate support to discredit their report, the Biblical record, by default, remains true and uncontested.

By support, I am not referring to some scholar's opinion, but of genuine historical evidence on par with the evidence I presented you.