[mmmpie]

(Original post by Ryan_94)
I will say this though: People THINK it's a circular argument and it does SOUND like one, but on further inspection you'll see the OP was saying that the Bible said something that CAN and WAS PROVEN and KNOWN at the time, OUTSIDE of the context of the Bible.

Which tells us nothing. It makes no difference whether I tell you there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter, or I tell you that it was once proved and known that there was a teapot orbiting Jupiter: you still have no reason to believe that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

[Frankie_say_relax]

And the Qu'ran says Allah is the one and only true God with Mohammad as his prophet... how do muslims know this to be true? Because the Qu'ran said so... and how do they know they can trust the Qu'ran? Because the Qu'ran said so...
See anything wrong with that logic? Then try looking at your post and think objectively... does this really count as evidence?

[yclicc]

Trying to find evidence for the Bible using evidence that isn't in the Bible is tricky. In many cases, there are no secondary sources at all. However, assuming that because it is in the Bible it definitely isn't true is just as bad as assuming it definitely is. Christians can take confidence from the inner consistency of the Bible (often you see the Old Testament foreshadowing the New for example), and certain historical facts do add up, the fall of the Babylonian and the rise of the Persian empire is mentioned in Daniel, though I don't know of any corroborating evidence for Daniel having predicted this from the famous "Writing on the Wall" passage (see wikipedia, also the dictionary for this one....). Bearing in mind most other people present at the banquet are murdered during the night though, Daniel being the only person to record this perhaps isn't surprising.

(For those not familiar with the story, the king of Babylon is having a banquet, a ghostly hand writes on the wall, which Daniel interprets for the assembled guests to mean the king is about to be murdered. He is ignored, but the Persian revolution occurs overnight afterwards just the same...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_on_the_wall

[Ryan_94]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Which tells us nothing. It makes no difference whether I tell you there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter, or I tell you that it was once proved and known that there was a teapot orbiting Jupiter: you still have no reason to believe that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

It's not about whether you believe in the rest of the Bible or not, I think he's solely referring to verse 15 (?) being historically proven and accurate.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Okashira)
The letter Matthew wrote explicitly states this as common knowledge.

Matthew was delusional. It is like that because it could be proven outside of the bible (do you see what I'm getting at here)

[Frankie_say_relax]

(Original post by yclicc)
Trying to find evidence for the Bible using evidence that isn't in the Bible is tricky. In many cases, there are no secondary sources at all. However, assuming that because it is in the Bible it definitely isn't true is just as bad as assuming it definitely is. Christians can take confidence from the inner consistency of the Bible (often you see the Old Testament foreshadowing the New for example), and certain historical facts do add up, the fall of the Babylonian and the rise of the Persian empire is mentioned in Daniel, though I don't know of any corroborating evidence for Daniel having predicted this from the famous "Writing on the Wall" passage (see wikipedia, also the dictionary for this one....). Bearing in mind most other people present at the banquet are murdered during the night though, Daniel being the only person to record this perhaps isn't surprising.

(For those not familiar with the story, the king of Babylon is having a banquet, a ghostly hand writes on the wall, which Daniel interprets for the assembled guests to mean the king is about to be murdered. He is ignored, but the Persian revolution occurs overnight afterwards just the same...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_on_the_wall

Nobody is assuming that everything in the Bible is untrue - nice strawman argument though.

There is very little consistency in the Bible. The gospels can't even agree on what exactly happened during what is seemingly the most important event in Christiantiy: The Crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Bits such as where Jesus was taken immediately after his arrest and whether Herod questioned him or not are contradictory. You may just brush this off as minor mistakes but one would expect the bible to be 100% reliable in its consistency to trust in such supernatural claims as the existence of a deity.

[yclicc]

(Original post by Frankie_say_relax)
Nobody is assuming that everything in the Bible is untrue - nice strawman argument though.

There is very little consistency in the Bible. The gospels can't even agree on what exactly happened during what is seemingly the most important event in Christiantiy: The Crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Bits such as where Jesus was taken immediately after his arrest and whether Herod questioned him or not are contradictory. You may just brush this off as minor mistakes but one would expect the bible to be 100% reliable in its consistency if it were all it was cracked to be.

The exact details of some parts of the gospels don't match I agree. I haven't looked at which gospel says what on this particular point you raise...but you have to bear in mind the gospels were researched independently and not immediately after the event. I don't think the disciples had the writing of the gospels in mind when (and if you prefer if) Jesus was with them after his resurrection, and probably wouldn't have asked for a blow by blow account of the gory details (this was before the tabloid press remember). <illinformed unresearched speculation> The interrogation by Herod may have been in secret for example </speculation> (the authorities were wary of Jesus' popular support remember)

One part I know a bit more about is the resurrection of Lazarus, which is only recorded in John's gospel (the last to be written), is thought by scholars today to be because of a desire to protect Lazarus (who was still alive). John himself mentions the authorities tried to kill Lazarus again to cover up the evidence, perhaps to justify this. In addition, John covers his back saying at the very end of his gospel:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

You have to take into account also the different purposes and natures of the gospels: Luke for instance, is a deliberately historical account written for an interested Roman. John omits many of Jesus' miracles but adds a lot of theological filling to explain the meaning of Jesus' life.

The important point for believing Christians is that the gospels do agree on the important points, such as that Jesus did in fact die and rise again, though I doubt this will convince a persistent sceptic.

Also, on the straw man argument you accuse me of, I apologise, but was trying to respond to some things said earlier in the thread. It is an obvious point I made, but valid nevertheless. It proved the point though, that you certainly can't say all of the bible isn't true. (Notice the careful wording, and don't read any more into it than that)

[Okashira]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
No it wouldn't, you literally had to wipe your arse with a torah and start a riot in order to earn the death penalty as a Roman soldier in Judaea, the Roman's weren't in the business of mass executions of their own soldiers for a number of reasons.

They generally weren't Romans, or even Italian, they were fighting for a foreign nation that had often conscripted them or this was their only means of securing citizenship from their new masters. Regularly executing people would mean far less recruits.

Secondly they were on a mission for the Jews, and honestly the Romans couldn't care less about the upper echelons of Jewish society. They were widely resented for pandering to Roman sensibilities and either around this time or shortly after were in any case subject to the regular assassinations of the sicarii. Even less pressure for Romans to care enough to act.

You made the statement that if they started a riot, they could be killed. Falling asleep on duty, and letting the disciples take the body, allowing them to continue to preach in Jesus' name, would cause a riot among the jewish leaders. Then the leaders would stir up the people, which would lead to a riot.

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Thirdly them falling asleep isn't exactly necessary for them to lose the body. Ignoring the fact that the author of Matthew would have to purely speculate on the bribery (it's hardly like they'd go round telling everyone they were bribed) based on the assumption that Jesus was raised and they're not telling the truth, them being overcome is also a possibility. In any case, sleep (or drunkenness for that matter) is still a viable option.

There were people within the Sanhedrin, who was for Jesus. Paul would have been one of them, as he was a pharisee. Nicodemus is another. So these guys were on the inside, and could have revealed the bribe to the disciples. It's not likely the guards would have been overcome. If the disciples took the body by force, more than likely there would have been casualties.

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
So noone knowing where any of them are makes them LESS able to commit a covert theft of the body? Particularly when we know a few days later they were still in Jerusalem?

Yes, they were in Jerusalem, hiding. Afraid that they would be killed because of their association with Jesus. If they had successfully taken the body, they could have immediately began preaching that Jesus rose again. Yet, they didn't. They remained in hiding.

Of course, the information about them we are using, comes from the NT letters themselves. Yet, as I've been trying to point out to everyone who's responded to this thread, Matthew is making an extra-biblical claim as it were. He is referring to something that was widely known. So if we were alive in 40-62 AD, and we were reading Matthew's Gospel fresh off the printing press, whether or not we believed what Matthew was saying concerning Jesus resurrection/miracles/etc, we would all agree the jewish leaders did say the disciples took Jesus body. (Implying it was no longer in the tomb)

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
In any case, it's fairly easy to speculate on the incentives of these people in acting. Many of them were fisherman who had either abandoned or gone with their families into more or less poverty with Jesus. Being uneducated, and not having the start up capital to start again, having engaged personally with noone in the last 3 years without the intention of bringing them round to Jesus.

Or they had a better incentive. Return to their lives before Jesus came to them. Remember, it is modern scholars who are saying that Jesus never made any kind of extra-ordinary claim about being God's Son. Only this was a later embellishment by the disciples. If that were true, why didn't the disciples just return to their normal lives? All the religious leaders wanted was Jesus (which if He never made the claim He was the Son of God, it begs the question why did the chief priests wanted Jesus dead?), they probably didn't even remember what the disciples looked like. Jesus had over a hundred and more disciples. So them embellishing Jesus as an incentive isn't likely as the better option was to return to life as normal.

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
The case for them not being told that he would rise again seems contingent on the historical narrative that they were scared and hiding being true, but it's also contingent on the gospel narrators accounts of the numerous times he tells them he's going to rise again being false. Either way you have deliberate manipulation of the facts by the gospel authors to suit their own purposes, I'm simply more inclined to say that given the much more complicated situation going on after the death of Jesus, the higher stakes involved and the wide-spread knowledge of his public preaching they're more likely to manipulate that than what he was preaching before in any significant degree.

And again they had more incentive to just return to life as normal. If what modern scholars make of the historical Jesus is true, they definitely could have returned to life as normal. All the chief priests wanted was to get rid of Jesus, and they probably would have seen the disciples returning to life as normal and coming to the conclusion that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, as perfect.

[yclicc]

(Original post by Okashira)
You made the statement that if they started a riot, they could be killed. Falling asleep on duty, and letting the disciples take the body, allowing them to continue to preach in Jesus' name, would cause a riot among the jewish leaders. Then the leaders would stir up the people, which would lead to a riot.



There were people within the Sanhedrin, who was for Jesus. Paul would have been one of them, as he was a pharisee. Nicodemus is another. So these guys were on the inside, and could have revealed the bribe to the disciples. It's not likely the guards would have been overcome. If the disciples took the body by force, more than likely there would have been casualties.




Yes, they were in Jerusalem, hiding. Afraid that they would be killed because of their association with Jesus. If they had successfully taken the body, they could have immediately began preaching that Jesus rose again. Yet, they didn't. They remained in hiding.

Of course, the information about them we are using, comes from the NT letters themselves. Yet, as I've been trying to point out to everyone who's responded to this thread, Matthew is making an extra-biblical claim as it were. He is referring to something that was widely known. So if we were alive in 40-62 AD, and we were reading Matthew's Gospel fresh off the printing press, whether or not we believed what Matthew was saying concerning Jesus resurrection/miracles/etc, we would all agree the jewish leaders did say the disciples took Jesus body. (Implying it was no longer in the tomb)



Or they had a better incentive. Return to their lives before Jesus came to them. Remember, it is modern scholars who are saying that Jesus never made any kind of extra-ordinary claim about being God's Son. Only this was a later embellishment by the disciples. If that were true, why didn't the disciples just return to their normal lives? All the religious leaders wanted was Jesus (which if He never made the claim He was the Son of God, it begs the question why did the chief priests wanted Jesus dead?), they probably didn't even remember what the disciples looked like. Jesus had over a hundred and more disciples. So them embellishing Jesus as an incentive isn't likely as the better option was to return to life as normal.



And again they had more incentive to just return to life as normal. If what modern scholars make of the historical Jesus is true, they definitely could have returned to life as normal. All the chief priests wanted was to get rid of Jesus, and they probably would have seen the disciples returning to life as normal and coming to the conclusion that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, as perfect.

The commitment of the disciples (even to death and persecution) to spreading the gospel, and their evident and undisputed success in doing so, is good evidence that their testimony is true. I do think that this thread is somewhat misguided though. A leap of faith is undeniably required to trust the Bible, but the Bible itself teaches that Christians are guided by the holy spirit to take this leap. Christianity is the worlds largest faith. Note the bold lettering. No amount of convincing arguments can produce faith, but they can support it, and counteract those who would try and stifle it by other arguments. See some of the books I recommended earlier.

[Elzie]

(Original post by Norton1)
No. His true nature has been revealed to us.



Like you wouldn't believe.

I'm enjoying the fact that Raptor Jesus is more popular and more legit than actual Christianity.

Is any one else Jedi on their census form? I must say, my family are DEVOUT jedis. We're all about using some of that sweet force.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Elzie)
I'm enjoying the fact that Raptor Jesus is more popular and more legit than actual Christianity.

Is any one else Jedi on their census form? I must say, my family are DEVOUT jedis. We're all about using some of that sweet force.

I've been enjoying the thread immensely since I realised that a 'hard' piece of evidence would be a fossil...heeeeellllooooooo Raptor Jesus.

[Okashira]

(Original post by yclicc)
The commitment of the disciples (even to death and persecution) to spreading the gospel, and their evident and undisputed success in doing so, is good evidence that their testimony is true. I do think that this thread is somewhat misguided though. A leap of faith is undeniably required to trust the Bible, but the Bible itself teaches that Christians are guided by the holy spirit to take this leap. Christianity is the worlds largest faith. Note the bold lettering. No amount of convincing arguments can produce faith, but they can support it, and counteract those who would try and stifle it by other arguments. See some of the books I recommended earlier.

I have a different idea about what faith means. I take the word for what it is. Simply, trust. Having faith in God, is trusting in Him. It has nothing to do with whether or not we believe He exists. If one is not sure God exists, how can he have faith in God? How can we trust someone, when we don't even know that person exists? So knowing God exists is based on reasoning, putting things together.

I'm familar some of the books you posted, I'll definitely take a look at them.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Elzie)
I'm enjoying the fact that Raptor Jesus is more popular and more legit than actual Christianity.

Is any one else Jedi on their census form? I must say, my family are DEVOUT jedis. We're all about using some of that sweet force.

Jediism is a bit naff, it's kinda monkish. Sithism is a hell of a lot better.

[icy elemental]

Why is it some Christians say, when something good happens it is God's will, but when something bad happens, like a flood or a natural disaster, they say "Oh, God works in mysterious ways".

If I ever meet one of them and punch them in the face, would I be justified, when they are about to hit back, to say "Don't hit back, you should love me! I'm mysterious!"?

[Elzie]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Jediism is a bit naff, it's kinda monkish. Sithism is a hell of a lot better.

I don't think anyone is actually Jedi. We just did it to mess with the government..

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Elzie)
I don't think anyone is actually Jedi. We just did it to mess with the government..

Nah, but still - there are better joke religions.

[nmudz_009]

Oh ****t not again

[yclicc]

(Original post by Okashira)
I have a different idea about what faith means. I take the word for what it is. Simply, trust. Having faith in God, is trusting in Him. It has nothing to do with whether or not we believe He exists. If one is not sure God exists, how can he have faith in God? How can we trust someone, when we don't even know that person exists? So knowing God exists is based on reasoning, putting things together.

I'm familar some of the books you posted, I'll definitely take a look at them.

That's what I take faith to mean also. However, believing God exists is a necessary prerequisite for faith. You certainly can't have faith in something you don't believe exists, so in this regard having faith has everything to do with believing he exists. If you believe he exists exactly as described in the Bible, going from there to faith is much easier than coming from a position of "he doesn't exist at all".

What the Bible makes clear is that by nature we don't want to trust God. Experience makes it clear nobody is likely to believe God exists by reasoning, particularly reasoning coming from the evidence of the Bible (believing in the Bible's evidence means you probably believe in God already). Promoting better understanding of what the Bible actually says is a worthwhile endeavour though, as many people are put off (or choose to be put off) by saying things such as "God does something evil in chapter x verse x therefore God isn't good, therefore God doesn't exist" jumping immediately to the conclusion they are looking to draw without properly looking into it. The Bible isn't self contradictory, and this should be made clear to people.

As to saying that the existence of God can be shown purely on the basis of reasoning...it can be made to look less implausible (many of the common arguments against it can be shown to be fallacious), and books such as those I mentioned put forward a good case, but there is no killer argument that is going to convince everyone, particularly if they don't want to be convinced. If there was, there wouldn't be so much atheism (and we haven't even mentioned the many other faiths in the world yet). I think a lot of people claim atheism on dubious misreading of the Bible though...

The way the book of Isaiah describes the gospels hundreds of years in advance is miraculous, and at the very least, striking, but you then have to convince people that neither was Isaiah edited retrospectively to fit the gospels, nor the gospels edited to fit Isaiah. To be sure, reasoning for the existence of God without trusting the evidence of the Bible is much more difficult!

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by Okashira)
You made the statement that if they started a riot, they could be killed. Falling asleep on duty, and letting the disciples take the body, allowing them to continue to preach in Jesus' name, would cause a riot among the jewish leaders. Then the leaders would stir up the people, which would lead to a riot.

Except... you know... that didn't happen? You vastly overstate the popular support for the Jewish leaders at the time and vastly overstate Jesus' importance to either the Romans or the Sandherin. Neither REALLY cared that much.

(Original post by Okashira)
There were people within the Sanhedrin, who was for Jesus. Paul would have been one of them, as he was a pharisee. Nicodemus is another. So these guys were on the inside, and could have revealed the bribe to the disciples. It's not likely the guards would have been overcome. If the disciples took the body by force, more than likely there would have been casualties.

All speculative, in any case you've proved nothing of the Matthew authors connection to knowing that this was the case, especially given citing the source would have been eminently useful for this argument there if he actually had a decent one.

(Original post by Okashira)
Yes, they were in Jerusalem, hiding. Afraid that they would be killed because of their association with Jesus. If they had successfully taken the body, they could have immediately began preaching that Jesus rose again. Yet, they didn't. They remained in hiding.

Almost as though it was a fragmented movement of desperate people not necessarily all acting together yet unsure of there next move. Sounds a lot like a plausible scenario for the theft.

(Original post by Okashira)
Of course, the information about them we are using, comes from the NT letters themselves. Yet, as I've been trying to point out to everyone who's responded to this thread, Matthew is making an extra-biblical claim as it were. He is referring to something that was widely known. So if we were alive in 40-62 AD, and we were reading Matthew's Gospel fresh off the printing press, whether or not we believed what Matthew was saying concerning Jesus resurrection/miracles/etc, we would all agree the jewish leaders did say the disciples took Jesus body. (Implying it was no longer in the tomb)

I'm cool with that.

(Original post by Okashira)
Or they had a better incentive. Return to their lives before Jesus came to them. Remember, it is modern scholars who are saying that Jesus never made any kind of extra-ordinary claim about being God's Son. Only this was a later embellishment by the disciples. If that were true, why didn't the disciples just return to their normal lives? All the religious leaders wanted was Jesus (which if He never made the claim He was the Son of God, it begs the question why did the chief priests wanted Jesus dead?), they probably didn't even remember what the disciples looked like. Jesus had over a hundred and more disciples. So them embellishing Jesus as an incentive isn't likely as the better option was to return to life as normal.

A combination of some really did believe and some had nothing to return to. Bear in mind his immediate circle were fishermen, taxmen etc. Lots of his disciples had little or nothing at the start and now they belonged to a self-sustaining mobile community. Often they didn't even have families to return to as they'd abandoned them and would need start up capital (to get a boat as a fisherman) or local trust from Roman officials (to get your position as a taxman back). Having followed Jesus they lost both these things.

In any case I'm unsure what you're arguing, you seem to be saying that Jesus never said he was divine so why didn't they just go back to their jobs then say that Jesus did say he was divine which is why he was killed.

(Original post by Okashira)
And again they had more incentive to just return to life as normal. If what modern scholars make of the historical Jesus is true, they definitely could have returned to life as normal. All the chief priests wanted was to get rid of Jesus, and they probably would have seen the disciples returning to life as normal and coming to the conclusion that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, as perfect.

Some could, some couldn't for the reasons given above. We have no record of those that did go back to normal life because our only record of the early stages of the movement is from believers. In any case, it doesn't take a conspiracy of every disciple to make the body disappear.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Okashira)
Let's think about this for a sec. If I was trying to persuade of something, and I refer to something happening last week to enforce my points, wouldn't the thing I'm referring to have to be true? Not only that, but you would have to know what I'm talking about in my reference of that thing last week, before you can understand whatever point I'm making. This is what Matthew is doing. His referring to something known, in order to bring out the complete truth.

The chief priests proclamation of the disciples taking Jesus' body was a known fact in the time Matthew's gospel was written.

But it's not known. Simply referring to something as 'known' doesn't mean it is. It doesn't provide independent support for the claim, which is the whole point.