CrashFrog vs. Juhrahnimo: A friendly discussion

I understand your thought: But many of the truths to which most of us cling depend greatly on what we choose to believe. For example, George Washington crossed the Delaware and made history. YOU cannot know that for a fact, simply because it's not possible for you (or me) in particular. But there are written eye-witness accounts that it happened. You can choose to believe it or not.
When Martin Luther nailed his famous (infamous?) list of gripes on the church door, he changed history. But was it really Martin Luther, or someone else? There are written eye-witness accounts of what happened. We can choose to believe eye-witness accounts or not. In the case of Jesus resurrection (and I know this will blow this thread wide open with a flurry of responses), there are eye-witness accounts of him being most certainly dead, but alive again on the third day. We can choose to believe that or not. But it's HOW we choose that will make the difference for us individually; we can believe just because we like the story, or reject the testimony just because we don't like the story. Or because we like the eyewitnesses, or because we DON'T like the eyewitnesses. Or, like you basically said, because it's humanly "impossible" or at least highly unlikely. But how many times have you heard a story that seemed impossible, but you basically had to believe it because of the overwhelming eyewitness testimony? I myself have refused to believe some absolutely impossible thing happened once, until I saw the video tape footage with my own eyes. Or perhaps you've experienced something so incredible that you were almost embarrassed to tell anyone because you didn't think anyone would believe you? But yet you KNEW for a fact that it was TRUE because you experienced it yourself. So, for something to be fundamentally unknowable seems a little limited. Maybe, that is. Just my thoughts.Anyway, in regard to eyewitness accounts, what do you think of testimony of the four gospels and the eyewitnesses themselves? Just curious.

Sorry, I take it back. I guess I misunderstood. Plz strike from the record.

Well, that's true, Luke. From a certain point of view, of course. I'm not talking about an eyewitness who sat there for a couple of days, watched & smelled the body slowly begin to rot, when all of a sudden the flies scattered like rats, the heart began pumping, the arteries filled with blood, the chest began to heave.... Well, you know what I mean (they didn't have stethoscopes or heart monitors in those days). I'm talking about the accounts by the four gospel writers (as you basically mentioned). Jesus was dead and numerous people could verify that, including the Roman executioner and his well trained, staff. Jesus was indeed buried, and the tomb is empty despite having been guarded by a Roman garrison of trained killers. I understand all the refutations of the gospels and the gospel writers, etc, but the preponderance of written evidence is, in my humble opinion, quite overwhelming. Thoughts?Also: Again, true. But we can't forget that their written testimony wasn't really courtroom testimnony that could only include what they themselves actually saw and heard; they were also telling a true story and had to include many points that were also hearsay in order maintain the story structure and context without leaving gaping holes, as well as maintaining numerous important parts of the story. Still, in order to keep the wrritten account at a readable length, they couldn't include each and every little detail either. The basics of some of Jesus' teachings, etc, deeds, etc, followed by the death and ressurrection are of great importance. In a courtroom, hearsay would naturally not be admitted.But, Jesus was verfied to be dead by the Roman professionals, as well as by disciples who were there (John at the cross specifically) and Joseph of Arimathea (who owned the tomb Jesus was buried in and who also laid him there). Since the stone was far too large for any one man to roll over the grave, Joseph certainly had help although we're not sure how many people actually helped out (Nicodemus was indeed there); they are witnesses just the same. The four gospels writers record eyewitness accounts. Just as a court recorder or transcriber might not be the actual eyewitness of events, he/she certainly had access to the eyewitness. Since not everyone could write in those days, or even had access to writing materials, well... you can guess the rest.
But specifically to the four gospels, there is a preponderance of evidence that the Matthew was indeed written by Matthew, who was an apostle of Christ. A strong preponderance indicates Mark was dictated by Peter, also an apostle. Luke was a gentile writer, so he most obviously wasn't there as a witness, but reading his gospel indicates he clearly had access to actual eyewitnesses. As to John's gospel, despite much disputing among scholars who the actual author was, it's clear to me that he wrote it (and he was an apostle as we at the cross with Jesus). There are also much disputed gospels written by Thomas and Philip, but let's steer clear of those or this thread will start spinning out of control within the next 30 minutes.Let's just stick with John for now; he was at the cross and he was the gospel writer who reported that Jesus' side was pierced, out of which came blood and water (John 19:34). Sorry about all the wind so far; but just consider what John writes. Jesus appeared to MANY after he rose. Jesus was seen to be clearly dead, then seen to be clearly alive. We can choose to believe the testimony or reject it, no matter how believable or unbelievable it might be.

You veered away from my point. I was saying that we can CHOOSE to believe or CHOOSE to reject evidence or testimony. I wasn't talking about the importance of what we believe. (look at the quote you used from me). Even though we weren't there to see it, we can still believe based on eyewitness accounts or other evidence. I know where you're going with that; "WHO CARES" is the answer you would give, right? But again, that's not my point. So in the spirit of my discussion (and point) my answer to your question is: I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence either way, whether eyewitness testimony, forensic, material, or otherwise. Show me the available evidence, then I'll deliberate and make a decision as to whether I believe it or not. If he threw the silver dollar, I wasn't an eyewitness to the event so I'm FORCED to look at evidence. (Or I could just shoot back a cocky answer like: No, they didn't even HAVE silver dollars when George crossed the Delaware that night! But I'm guessing that's not the answer you were looking for). Sadly, this was foretold. John 16:2 Your key words were "CONSIDERED to be Christians". That could lead us to a whole new thread.

As I stated, you can accept or reject anything. No surpise there. True, you can call them to testtify again. Unless they've moved to the cemetary. Then they can't be called back. Then the written record can either be accepted or rejected. But even IF they ARE still alive, their testimony can STILL be accepted or rejected.So, just because there are I've read all four, and they don't seemed plagarized to me. As a matter of fact, some contradictions even surface (that opponents have trumpeted loudly) which is exactly what happens when you interview people who witnessed the exact same event. Shows they're human. But that doesn't mean an investigator will consider the event to have never happened. Eyewitnesses often get some details wrong, but if some guys get together and plagarize, wouldn't they get it right? And if they copied off "each other", which came first; the chicken or the egg? Who wrote what first? Perhaps Matthew went first, then Mark copied off Matthew. Then Luke copied off Mark. Then John copied off Luke. All containing different levels of detail and perspective (which can also indicate who was an actual eyewitness or not; check the gospel of Mark AKA gospel of Peter). Reminds me of a old movie where Don Knotts was warned to not get cheated by the local shopkeeper. Don Knotts: "...well, he'll have to get up PRETTY EARLY in the morning for that..." (scene from "Shakiest gun in the west".)Basically, you chose sources that support what you wish to believe. There are NUMEROUS other sources that refute what your sources state. But, since you're satisfied with what you've found, you're content to believe that whatever happened during Jesus time is "lost to history". This leaves you the standard contingency plan that you might try to use at the throne of judgement ("I plead ignorance, your honor"), which won't work in your case since you aren't ignorant; you've simply chosen to reject. But now we're headed back to debating the evidence of God found in his creation, which is already being debated in other threads (DUCK! Here comes ADMIN! )Anyway, there are many people who have set out to discredit the Bible, and they've done exactly that (books, lectures, etc). Many Bible scholars don't believe the Bible any more than a Shakespeare scholar believes Macbeth killed his king. But what they say (in your quotes) is not supported with evidence EITHER. Only pure speculation. And there are also enough of the SAME people who started out trying to discredit the Bible, only to wind up believing it. (Who are they? Doesn't matter because we can find ways to discredit them.) You can discredit the Republicans if you you'd like, or the Democrats if you'd like. It's all about whether we choose to accept or reject.

I need to see or hear the testimony of those who saw it.

No kidding. Thomas said the same thing, and he was allowed to touch Jesus' hands and put his hand in his side before he believed. So, let's say Thomas had an unfair advantage and he could believe while we can't. How could god rectify that in our lives?

Got it. It was just a wild guess to be lighten up the post a little. It wasn't important to the post at all. But thanks anyway. Now we at least know George COULD have thrown it!
Back to the topic (duck!)

Maybe I missed your purpose. Do you think we have enough evidence to make a decision now?

First to Mary Magdalene. Also, John, Peter (Simon), Thomas, and others. Luke 24:34, Mark 16:9, 12, 14. John 20:18, 20. Matthew 28:9 to list a few. Is that DIRECT testimony? You've already rejected it so there's no sense in listing more.

I never discounted Washington crossing the Delaware. It was the silver dollar thing that Purpledawn asked about. Glad you cleared that up for him/her.

We don't even believe what modern political thinkers have to say TODAY; why would we consider what they said 2000 years ago? (unless they're from our own party!) Joke! Just a joke! Nevermind! This message has been edited by Juhrahnimo, 01-19-2005 14:32 AM

And NOT experiencing something doesn't make it false.

We don't. But, So do most atheist scientists who support evolution. That doesn't negate their testimony. Not after the angels appeared to them and rolled away the stone. Those Romans had to head for the bathroom. When those soldiers told what happened, you would think they would have been executed; UNLESS their boss actually thought the case was true (which he did, as well as the high priests). "Cosmo" authored a great post above. Red herring.
And even IF all those people would have sat down and written out their accounts, would you believe them? So, then it doesn't really matter, does it? You choose to believe or reject.

Um, Cosmo. Nice post, but that last line: Was that meant for me? Juhrahnimo sounds like jeronimo, so that's what tipped me off (). If so, I don't get it. What post are you reffering to? If not, nevermind. Nice post.