Christians, what are your opinions on the answer.?

Question

Christians, on my last question I got many similar answers, but I got one answer debunked all the other answers, which raised my curiosity even more more . This is from one person.

1. Roman records prove Jesus existed.

False. There are no contemporary records that Jesus existed. The earliest possible reference to Jesus by a non-Christian was about 60 years after he supposedly died by a Jewish historian. Most scholars think it is mostly a forgery.

2. 500 people witnessed the risen Christ.

Wrong, one person (Paul) SAID that 500 people witnesed Christ. Even Mormanism has 11 sworn affidavits saying Joseph Smith was telling the truth. In this case, Paul only claims 500 people saw him.

3. The authors of the bible testify to the miracles.

There is a problem here. We have no idea who they are. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John are names that were chosen in 180 AD, about 100 years after the fact.

Mark never met Jesus, neither did Luke. Since Matthew copied from Mark, it makes sense he didn't see him either. John was written almost 70-80 years after the fact and there is no reason to believe he met Jesus either. Paul admits he never met Jesus.

Pretty crappy witnesses.

4. The bible says he performed miracles

I shouldn't have to explain why this is a stupid reason.

5. Faith

If I have "faith" that a unicorn exists in my backyard I am crazy. If I have "faith" a man walked on water 2,000 years ago I am a Christian. Does this make sense to anyone?

6. No one would die for a lie

Many early Mormons died for a lie. Muslims die for a lie every day, and have since the beginning. The Bob Jones cult committed mass suicide. David Koresh got his folks to nearly do the same.

This claim is a bald-faced lie...many contemporaries of false god-claimers have given their lives.

7. The Apostles were martyred for their beliefs?

Oh really? Please point out in the bible where it says this happened! (Hint, it's not in there). The stories about the martyrdom of apostles were written about 200 AD, at a time when Christians really were being killed, so they wrote stories that reflected that. None of those stories are in the bible. There is no reason to think these folks died of old age.

eh...that's enough. It should be obvious enough without addressing every point.

Source(s):
Reason, and I have actually read the bible

Here is the original question..
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmAHaOHNZ5OvqodpXt23_P3sy6IX?qid=20061208145034AAXF8Uy

Im not trying to put others down, I'm just curious.

Answer 1

Yep good answer.I reckon he may have existed but may just have been just another schizophrenic which makes me think if he did come back today he would be committed to an asylum,so anyone looking for him ought to start searching the funny-farms.

Answer 2

My opinions:

1. The "there are no contemporary records" statement was made originally without scholarly research (sometimes in the 18th century if I remember correctly), and some people prefer to stick to it no matter what.

2. I don't know whether there is any other document for that.

3. About the dating and authors of the Gospels, please refer to no. 1. Contemporary scholars date the Gospels in the first century and admit they have no reason to doubt the identity of the authors as recorded by Church Tradition. The Gospel after Matthew was actually the first Gospel. John was very young at the time of the Crucifixion and lived very long. Luke was the disciple of Paul, and Mark the disciple of Peter.

You are not forced to believe, though.

4. See above.

5. You seem to confuse faith with delusion. Admittedly, many people confuse faith with delusion, so since you don't know what faith is (from experience I mean), what could I say more?

6. Indeed, for you there is no difference between the deluded and the faithful. What is a proof to me will therefore not be a proof to you.

7. Yes, some apostles were martyred, but not all. About the historical evidence, see no. 1. The New Testament is not a complete record of all events, and as everyone can see, the Acts of the Apostles end rather abruptly. The NT canon is a collection of writings considered authentic by the Church.

I really don't see the point of this. I think it's naive of people who don't understand what faith is to think they can "debunk" it. You can debunk scientology, mormons and Jehova's witnesses, and even islam, but look at you: all you can say about Christianity is that there is no historical evidence, and it's absurd to have faith and believe in miracles.

Yes, Christianity cannot be enforced to those who reject it. Even people who saw Jesus Christ with their own eyes and heard what He taught were free to reject Him and crucify Him. Others confess Him, and I am one of them. There has been a strong uninterrupted row of witnesses during the last almost two thousand years. Why should I choose to believe some wisecracks who feel they have to justify their faithlessness rationally?

Well, you get my point.

Answer 3

Well I won't go into details but even the Quran,the holy book tells about Jesus and if you go thru the Vedas,holy book of the Hindus,there seems to be a mention of a man who died for people,had 12 disciples and died on a tree.

Obviously you never saw your great-great grand father but that doesn't mean you didn't have one.

None of the Christians today have seen Jesus but the miracles like healing etc. (which science and humanities cannot explain) still happen in non-christian people's life.


Man as they say "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"
so you modify it!


CHRISTIAN BELIEF IS A MATTER OF CHOICE AND YOU'VE THE RIGHT TO LEAVE IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.BUT THAT DON'T MEAN YOU TRY PUT DOWN OTHER'S FAITH.THAT'S CHEAP.


JESUS WASN'T A REAL FAMOUS CELEBRITY,SO ONLY FEW PEOPLE COULD TESTIFY ABOUT IT.

Answer 4

I can appreciate the fact that you really do sound like you are curious...questioning brings answers and that is good. We will never know unless we ask.
I read your other question and to be honest, no one can "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" to anyone else, other than THEMSELVES, that Jesus Christ existed, that he performed miracle after miracle, the He truly is the Son of God...there can be no "physical" evidence that will be acceptable to everyone...even some of those who did see the miracles or saw Christ after His resurrection did not believe...
The ONLY way a person can truly know, and only for themselves, is to ask to only person who will give a direct, correct and honest answer: our Heavenly Father. He, through the spirit, will manifest the truth of all things to those who are humble and sincere, but we have to ask first.
I have a testimony, I know things to be true, I know Christ lived. I do not need witnesses or books or anything physical to prove to me He did all that he did. I know in my heart and in my mind because I have prayed and received an answer, countless answers, actually, to many questions.
I challenge you to do the same. Go to your Heavenly Father and in the name of Jesus Christ, ask Him if these things are true, if you really want to know, He will tell you in your mind and in your heart.
Good luck.

Answer 5

Well, I'm Deist and my major in college was religious studies. You are right on 1-3. 4 and 5 are not proof, both are "faith", not proofs. Plenty of people have died for a lie (look at the Iraq war). I don't know for sure about #7.

Answer 6

Paperback, months in the past whilst she made a matching remark, i will remember there have been multitudes of Christians who discovered them abhorrent. i'm hoping you remember that maximum Christians did no longer agree together with her. in reality, whilst that first arose i will remember a lot of human beings attacking her besides as some atheists who truly enjoyed Suzanne who defended her individual, if no longer her theology. there's no longer something you may say which will replace her perspectives (and vice versa) no be counted how adverse they're to you and others. thank you for posting the link. I, for one, get excitement from being saved interior the loop of this actual subject. Make no mistake, that's no longer an precise contemplated photograph of Christian theory. far from it.

Answer 7

I am not a christian and yet permit me to respond. To have faith in religion, you need not have first hand knowledge nor the strength of eye-witnesses. The kind of miracles attributed to Christ and his rising need not debunked, for such acts have been done by many before and after him. My quarrel with the Christians is that they consider them as the monopoly of Jesus Christ and that they had created a whole set of theology, in the name of Jesus, without any basis from the life and words of Jesus. For example, Jesus never intended to establish any religion after him. He was at best a reformer of the existing religion- the Judaism. For a balanced discussion on the criticism of the christian thelogy please visit this site.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/

Answer 8

If what you say is true were are the witnesses, where are the documents, as easily as it is to claim forgery on behalf of the gospel how much easier it is to claim forgery on behalf of the skeptics. If god desired to prove he would but he made this world and killed his only son, so no he doesn't have to prove a thing to you. He has done more for you then you are able to comprehend, but you do not see it and why. any scholar or wise man knows that the most powerful and influential are unseen working behind the scenes.
people are weak and easily mislead, on behalf of the gospel and the skeptics but what makes us strong is the relationship with our god, he is the strength and the purpose, want to question the big boss, then turn and question our god. I must warn you how ever, the proof which you seek may be more than you can handle.
god bless

Answer 9

From your original question, you don't have any 'proof.' I have it, other Christians have it, you don't have it.

After reading you chosen 'Best Answer,' I don't wonder about why you don't have the 'proof.' The logic was absent from this one especially:
4. The bible says he performed miracles

I shouldn't have to explain why this is a stupid reason.

So, if it's a reported miracle, it couldn't have happened. Well, I have never seen the War of 1812, therefore it didn't happen?

Hmmm. Sounds like the drawing board had better have a little more room on it!

Answer 10

My reasons are these: I committed my life to Jesus Christ. I know without a doubt that He exist and lives and lives in me. How do I know? Because I feel Him and I hear Him. You could no more convince me that Jesus is not real and who He said He is than you could convince me that the Pacific ocean is drawn on the TV screen and not real. I have been to the Pacific ocean, I know that it exist, just as I know without doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. I know this because I wanted to know for real and He was willing to give me the faith to know Him. Thats where it comes from, in case you didn't know.

Answer 11

I think you are cherry picking what you can from liberal scholarship. But, if there are plenty of other scholars you can engage with if you so choose. I certainly wouldn't accept your conclusions as facts. Tacitus' reference is not considered a forgery by all scholars, especially since he said harsh things about Chirstians. Your dating and naming of the Gospels is speculative at best. There is good reason to date them earlier and many scholars do. Worse, your argument is self-contradictory. You claim John, when writing, was too old to have been a witness, but the name John was not applied to the writing until 180 AD. This is making the same argument but for two different reasons. Bad form.