Hey, now that I'm reading this thread, I get to respond to it.
christwriter wrote:Yarps--First off, you have to consider the FACT that none of the scholors of Christ's age denied his existance. There are more historical documents on Christ than there are on Aristotle, and the documents that make up the new testament are only the most accurate.
Actually, many scholars don't mention Christ in any way at all. It's improper to say none of them denied his existance.
But, really, there's not much doubt that a man named Jesus existed.
It's improper also to take a text that is the basis of a religion and has been documented to be extensively edited and call it a historical testimony of fact.
Still, few people actually dispute the existance of someone named Jesus. It's his ancestry and abilities that are disputed.
christwriter wrote:Even the Koran has to mention Christ's existance and the posibility of his supernatural abilities, because to deny his existance and ability would be tantamount to saying President Bush doesn't exist.
Again, a religious text is not the same as an unbiased historical documentation. Religious texts are full of allegory. They're storybooks meant to convey a meaning, not to give an accurate account of events.
And it's not tantamount to saying President Bush doesn't exist; he's a modern figure. You can walk up and talk to him. To deny Christ's existance is foolish if only because there is ample evidence to support that such a man lived. To deny his abilities is not so foolish. In the minds of people 2000 years ago, the world was filled with magic. Stage magicians were wizards, and the leader of a budding religion would have been presumed to have supernatural powers, whether he actually had them or not.
christwriter wrote:According to the Roman empire, when someone was to be declared dead, there had to be at least five people to certify it...among them a physician. Jesus was declared dead. Therefor, he had to be alive at some point.
Rome was a huge city at the time; while it's likely that such a controversial figure as Christ would be viewed by at least five people, there is no guarantee that took place. He is certified as dead only in the Bible; there is no paperwork supporting the contention that he was viewed in this manner, and as I've already explained, a religious text will bend the truth to get a point across.
Again though, the fact that someone named Jesus lived is fairly uncontroversial - it's what he was believed to be and to be capable of that is at issue.
christwriter wrote:Something happened to his body. Both jewish, roman and Christian schollars agree on that. The only question is what happened.
Agreed. It was likely that his gravesite was marked and visited. It's more likely IMHO that his body was taken either by the Romans to prevent it from being used by the Christian faith, or by Christians, who it is now known, have a long history of taking apart their saints and distributing pieces of them as holy relics.
christwriter wrote:According to the bible, there were five hundred and twelve to five hundred and fourteen people who saw Christ after he was declared dead.
Many, many more people have seen Elvis alive. Eye witness accounts of the dead walking around are not proof of the dead walking around. Also, eyesight wasn't magically perfect back in those days; today you see dopplegangers of people who darn closely resemble people you know; sans glasses and with faith, someone who looked like Christ could be Christ risen from the grave.
Also, 512 - 514 is a damn accurate count. With modern technology, we can't even tell how many people sit in the stands at a baseball game to that level of accuracy. It just drips of editing.
christwriter wrote:There are Jewish schollars who mention Jesus "supposed" ability to enact miricals.
No question. There are also scholars who talk about the rulers of Rome dying and becoming gods themselves. A scholar who hears that Jesus could do things might write that he heard that. They do not write however, "I saw on this date, Jesus cause bread to fall from the skies." And that's a critical difference.
christwriter wrote:The varying testamony of the Gospels is actually MORE confirmation that the Gospels have some truth inside. If you have three or four wittnesses of a car-crash, their testamony is going to be, at best, slightly different (Some might not even agree on the direction of the car)
They NEVER contradicted each other further than mixing up a handful of names or dates...if you can narrate your own life without mixing up who you talked to and when, you have my respect and envy.
Read the originals if you can. They do differ. Christianity has a history of editing their words meant to be disseminated to the public. It's no great leap of faith (so to speak) to expect that they'd make the gospels alike.
Interestingly, you prove my point - you can't narrate your own life without mixing up events. How is it that the gospels manage to do so? The answer? Good editing.
christwriter wrote:In fact, there is even a discription of Christ's last few moments that is medically and scientifically correct.
Not really, no. Among the more glaring issues, the fact that nails through the hands would cause the hands to rip, leaving the arms hanging free. It was only later that the church edited (that word again) the scripture such that the nails went through the wrists, where bones could hold the arm in place.
But that aside, define scientifically accurate. The event would have to be repeated to have any meaning within the scientific community. And medically accurate? By Year 0 standards, perhaps. Then again, they still were killing women for failing to bear boys. Some medical accuracy there.
In the end, if you want to prove Christ was alive, that's easy. There are in fact, too many reports, many of them unbiased, to prove his existance.
If you want to prove he was the son of God without resorting to faith-based arguements, you need *ahem* a miracle.
</a>
