Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz!christian From: christian@topaz.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian Subject: Re: What we know Message-ID: <10783@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Tue, 7-Apr-87 04:23:19 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.10783 Posted: Tue Apr 7 04:23:19 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Apr-87 03:47:40 EST References: <10514@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Lines: 80 Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP [For those who find it hard to figure out an address such as mc1!larry@elroy.uucp note that I am following RFC822, wherein you send first to the site with the @. I follow the convention of turning the first UUCP hop into @ form, because news seems to be based on @ style addresses. If the ultimate destination is in the UUCP maps I just use user@host.uucp. If not, then I produce an address like the this one. An equivalent UUCP address would be elroy!mc1!larry More and more sites are using domain versions of their names. E.g. this would be larry@mc1.jpl.nasa.gov. Sometime this spring I will start using such names where they are available. If you want to be able to reply to messages you should make sure that your systems staff is implementing support for the domain format of UUCP names. For a UUCP-only site, this involves installing a program called rmail. For an Internet site, it involves using the latest version of sendmail. This software is generally available. If you need help in finding it, please contact me. --clh] In article <10735@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Kenneth Almquist writes >First, as far as I know, no serious scholar contends that we have >*any* writings about Jesus by anyone who met him. As far as I know, many have contended just this thing. What about Matthew, John, James (the half-brother of Jesus), and Peter? All of these men were certainly eyewittnesses of Jesus, his miracles, his teachings, *and his res- surection*. Throughout their writings they appeal to the reader in several ways: 1) "We saw it with our own eyes. We're not making up a bunch of farout stories 2) "You guys saw it yourselves. Are you going to deny that now?" 3) "Many people saw the risen Christ (500). Go ask them what they saw - don't just rely on our testimony alone" These wittnesses *did* bother to write down what they saw. Their writings are considered scripture because 1) They were indeed eyewitnesses 2) They had apostolic authority 3) Jesus said that the apostles would receive a specific gift from the Holy Spirit that would allow them to remember all that they had heard and seen. Whoever or whatever your sources were for this are not looking at all of the facts. >Second, the analogy between Lincoln giving a speech and Jesus rising >from the dead ignores the medical evidence that people do not rise >from the dead. ... It would >take strong evidence, stronger than historical evidence usually is, to >show that this general rule did not apply in a particular case. [The original also mentions modern claims of resurrections, which it is assumed everyone rejects out of hand. --clh] If the claims that Christ made in the NT are true and He is actually God, then for Him to raise Himself from the dead is entirely within His power. He need not conform His actions to the little medical evidence that humans have when his knowledge is infinite. What would consist of "strong" evidence? In a historical case like this, what more can be expected than several eyewitnesses claiming that it is true, turning from scared wimps hiding for safety to bold preachers of the ressurection of Christ even to death? 11 of the 12 disciples were killed for their beliefs, the other was exiled to an island. How successful do you think you would be if you tried to find 11 men who would die brutal deaths (try inverted crucifixtion for one) for something that they *knew* was an outright, deliberate lie that they had made up themselves? Good luck! >I am not hostile towards the Christian faith, although I don't believe >in it myself, and I hope that this article is not interpreted as an >attack on Christianity. I do object when Christians force historical >evidence to correspond to their religious preconceptions. This is >really a pro-intellectual postion rather than an anti-Christian >position, as is made clear by the fact that many Christians as well as >non-Christians object to "scientific" creationism. > Kenneth Almquist Good! But your position is not pro-intellectual because it ignore the basic facts that there *were* eyewitnesses and they *did* write down what they saw. Not only that, but they appealed to all of the people around them, including the hostile witnesses and forces that were still alive when their writings were being widely distributed, and they demonstrated their incredi ble conviction that Jesus did rise again by the radical changes in their lives and behavior! If you want more information I suggest three authors: 1) Frank Morris "Who Moved the Stone", 2) Josh McDowell, "The Ressurection Factor", 3) FF Bruce "The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?". Larry