Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: inconsistencies concerning the resurrection? Message-ID: Date: 7 Oct 90 03:04:15 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: IDE, San Francisco Lines: 60 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article you write: >In article >In effect you're saying the Resurrection is a historical fact that >can be *proven.* if you're asking for "scientific" proof that it occurred, then can you "scientifically prove" that napoleon or george washington existed? (of course not - you must rely on historical accounts) in courts of law, eyewitness accounts are generally accepted as "proof" that an event actually occurred. in Acts 2:32, Peter says: "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are *all* witnesses to the fact." (my emphasis added) he was speaking to a crowd, and obviously the context of the claim included everyone present. even if he'd been referring to just the apostles, he was making a very bold claim. now, if the apostles had gotten together and concoted a "story" that Jesus had risen from the dead, when he had not, then the natural question arises: "Why would these guys DIE for a lie that they'd created? Especially since they weren't seeking money or power, and were always in hot water with the Jewish hierarchy?" >I can't honestly decide for the truth of historocity >of the Resurrection intellectually, its only through faith from the >heart that I lean towards it. do yourself a favor and read a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. he was formerly a rabidly-anti-Christian atheist, until he honestly looked at the evidence. >The inconsistencies, and alternate please point these inconsistencies out for me, instead of just claiming they exist? >explanations, as well as mankind's imagination, make an intellectual >investigation lean against it. certainly mankind's imagination suggests ways for it to not be true, but that's only because men don't WANT to believe it's true. --- Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!" [I wouldn't want to say there's no evidence for the resurrection, but it's not quite what you'd see in a courtroom. There's a basic principle that witnesses should show up in person, so people can question them and you can make a judgement on their truthfulness. The closest to this we come in the NT is Paul, since we're sure about authorship of most of his letters, and there is enough in them to make at least some judgement about him. But it's still not like having him here. For the Gospels things are somewhat worse. We don't know who wrote them or exactly how direct their sources of information were. Again, I'm not out to knock the Bible, but saying it's just like a courtroom witness is a bit naive. --clh]