For example, the writers *WERE* eyewitnesses.

That claim is disputed by most Biblical scholars,

1) That is not true. That is something you read,
that was written by liberals. The truth of the
matter is, it is the opposite conclusion that is
reached by most reputable scholars.

2) It would not matter even if that were true.
How does majority opinion equal truth?

You see, you are doing it again. You don't have
a truth machine, but their opinion is gospel. (:

They
know that and so what do they do? They claim that
they're not "credible". And why aren't they credible?
Because those who don't want to believe don't like
what they said. :)

No, it's because the claims are extraordinary
yet come with no extraordinary proof,

Yes, they do. The amount of textual evidence
is extraordinary in of itself and you don't know
that, because you are too biased to research it.
There is not just more, but far, far more textual
evidence for the existence of Jesus and what
He said and did, than ANY OTHER figure in
ancient history! NO ONE is better attested to
with textual evidence than Jesus Christ!!!

get your head out of the sand and start doing
your homework!!!

The textual evidence and the facts of what it would
have meant for those men to lie, especially considering
that He was seen by hundreds and that texts were
written within the same life span of those who saw it
and we both know that it was checked out by people.
You don't make that kind of claim and have it just
assumed to be true by those who knew He was crucified.
This was a well known thing.

And btw, where is the "extraordinary proof"
that ghosts exist? Yet a third of the people
in the U.S. believe they exist.

Now you do what you want. The fact is, you are
a hypocrite. You claim that we don't have a truth
machine and so, we can't know and you then
proceed to put the Scriptures on trial and never
those who criticize it.

The SCIENCE of textual criticism states that
a text is assumed to be true, until it is disproved,
which puts the burden on the critics

a fact that the amount of eyewitness testimony
involved would stand up in a court of law.

Have the critics disproved it? No? Then they
should assume it to be true, given the weight
of the textual evidence.

Once again, under the rules of textual criticism,
which applies to ALL ancient texts, the burden
is on the critics, not the texts and yet, all we
see, is the opposite, but ONLY with those texts!

Are you really that dumb, that you can't see that?
Of course not. You do see it and deny it, because
you just don't want to see it. You are like the
"see no evil" monkey, covering his eyes because
he doesn't WANT to see what IS happening
right in front of him. (:

I am done discussing this with you.

It is not "the Bible vs evidence". The Bible IS
the evidence. It was not written as "the Bible".
They are texts, that were contemporary to that
same generation, that were later compiled and
put between a set of covers and the words
"Holy Bible" were put on the front.

And to further show your hypocrisy... Titus
was said to have healed men. Using your
logic, you must now believe that he never
existed.

Hypocrisy = Putting forth the idea that Jesus
never lived, or didn't heal, etc. and then having
no problem with the idea that Simon Magus
lived and healed people (it's never criticized)
and we find him written of in the New Testament.

You didn't know that, did you? Hmmmm....

Hypocrisy = Taking the word of the other text
that mentions Simon, which was written later
and yet, criticizing the New Testament texts,
which were written within the same generation.

Well? Hmmm?

And what of all of the others who weren't
even Christians and who recorded that
Jesus did live and those who recorded that
He was crucified under Pilate and those
who recorded that He had followers who
did claim that He was alive and to have
seen Him, which backs up the Biblical
record, which says the same thing?

Wait, I know, they don't count. Why don't
they count? No reason. At least no sound,
logical reason that anyone can give. They
just don't count and that's that. (:

When the critic asks for more evidence
and you give it to them, they run and hide
and later demand the same evidence, from
someone else that they think doesn't know
any better. And why is it that these so
called "scholars" never present all of this
other evidence? W-H-Y I-S T-H-A-T ???
And how many play dumb, pretending
that they don't know it exists and pretending
that it doesn't exist? W-H-Y ?!

Yes, that seems proper and logical to me.

Yea, right! What's REALLY going on?!

You will not ask that, because you know
that to acknowledge Him, it means that
you must bow before God and confess
who and what you REALLY are. And
THAT is why there are so many critics
of the Person who has more textual
evidence than ANY other person in
ancient history and THAT is why these
critics turn the rules of the SCIENCE
of Textual Criticism upside down,
ONLY when it comes to the texts that
now make up the New Testament.

This is a matter of faith anyway and it is
a matter of the heart. You're using these
idiots who proceed unscientifically and
call themselves scholars, as an excuse not
to believe, BECAUSE IN YOUR HEART,
you know what it means you have to do
and what you have to admit about yourself.

These days, we are taught to look in the
mirror and tell ourselves how much we
love ourselves and what a good person
we are. I remember years ago, when
they called that what it was... vanity. :)

that these other sources were 100% honest and accurate.

Perhaps not. Maybe they were simply reasonable in his opinion.

You don't know that, because it isn't the Scriptures
you are studying and it isn't the Scriptures you are
giving weight to at all. Your so called "search" is an
extremely biased one. (:

On 4 Apr 2006 11:01:33 -0700, "want2believe"
<need_proof_of_jesus_resurrection@yahoo.com> spake
thusly:

It's quite simple. You searched for the truth. Yet it
was the Bible and not the other information you were
reading, that you decided to put on trial. You assumed
that these other sources were 100% honest and accurate.

Alright, here's something that I read a few minutes ago:

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060201000220916

Good for you. You began by deleting and ignoring
the points I made, thereby showing me that no
matter what I say to you, you aren't going to heed it.

Can you provide a refutation? Something to show this is less than an
honest an accurate source? If so I would be more than grateful.

Why should I? Once again, you are assuming
that it should be given more credence than
the eyewitness accounts.

The whole idea of requiring "extraBiblical" evidence
is ludicrous on its face. The Bible is not one book.
It is a collection of ancient writings that were
compiled together and the words, "The Holy Bible"
were stamped onto the cover. And now these writings
are supposed to be dismissed? That would be like
saying that none of the famous philosophers even
existed, because we put their writings together
between a single set of covers. And I guess we'll
have to dismiss Caesar as well. After all, how many
claimed to be divine?

You do what you want. I could refute everything
you throw at me and you would just keep looking
for more links to throw at me.

The truth is, your criticism fails from the word "go".

The truth is, that this whole different approach
to the writings contained in the Bible, is not
scientific, since it does not use proper textual
criticism, which is a science, btw.

On 4 Apr 2006 11:01:33 -0700, "want2believe"
<need_proof_of_jesus_resurrection@yahoo.com> wrote:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 4 Apr 2006 00:38:42 -0700,
need_proof_of_jesus_resurrection@yahoo.com spake
thusly:

This post is directed toward anyone who is either a skeptic or a
Christian who has weathered a skeptic's argument and still managed to
believe....

How do you cope with people who tell you that Paul's vision of Jesus
was due to a stroke... "much of what is written in the Bible is
hearsay" .... "no non-biblical evidence of Jesus' resurrection,
miracles, etc?


My personal feeling is that life is hell without some sort of belief,
and most of my life I resisted the concept of religion until a
particularly low point (recently) where I felt there was nowhere else
to turn.


Very recently I started reading about the Catholic faith and it sounds
appealing to me. But then I made the mistake of going to a web site on

atheism, and once I read "Paul never knew Jesus".... I could not stop
reading.


At this point I have digested reams of material in the space of 3 hours

that do nothing but knock my house of cards down. I can't find my way

out of this hellhole. To add insult to injury I started reading about

multiverses and reincarnation and it only got worse !! I HAVE to
believe, but being a natural skeptic I can not muster it if someone has

an article with 20 sources stating why the Bible is full of
contradictions and that there are no direct, credible eyewitnesses to
the resurrection of Jesus.


Please, anyone who has gone through this tell me how you have sprung
back and recovered your faith. I'm most interested to know... do you
believe there is a grain of truth to what the atheists say but you
choose to believe anyway, or do you have counterarguments yourselves?
I do not mean to be offensive when saying this - I am seeking the
truth.... a frank answer will help me the most. At this point I'm
willing to take crumbs for belief.


-desp in no man's land

It's quite simple. You searched for the truth. Yet it
was the Bible and not the other information you were
reading, that you decided to put on trial. You assumed
that these other sources were 100% honest and accurate.

Alright, here's something that I read a few minutes ago:

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060201000220916

Can you provide a refutation? Something to show this is less than an
honest an accurate source? If so I would be more than grateful.

Thanks....

You could consider the fact that the "learned" expert in your
article refers to a quote by Justin Martyr, an early Christian
philosopher and patriarch. Mr. Baker states the following;

"Early Christians agreed that Christianity offered "nothing different"
from paganism. Arguing with pagans around C.E. 150, Justin Martyr
said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was
produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher,
was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we
propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom
you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus).""

However, Justin Martyr in an apologetic makes the following
disparate appeal;

"And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in
reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and
feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and
they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things
did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xxxv.html?highlight=pilate#highlight

The reason this is relevant is that it provides clear evidence that
Pontius Pilate recorded Christ's crucifixion, and that Pilate's acts
were a matter of public record in the Roman Empire, or at the least
available to government administrators.
Your authority on these matters, in his rather unimposing
commentary, lends credence to Justin Martyr in his [Mr. Baker's]
appeal to authority. Consequently, he should lend credence to the
above evidence from the same source.
As an aside, the declaration that Mr. Baker makes concerning
Justin Martyrs' apologetic is misleading. Justin Martyr was not
relenting in affirming that Christianity was warmed-over paganism. He
was appealing to sensibilities of a skeptical audience that was
possessed of superstitions that not only rivaled the miraculous
elements of Christianity but even exceeded them. Justin Martyr makes
a lucid distinction between paganism and Christianity, however, in the
same paragraph.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xxi.html?highlight=sexual,union#highlight
Likewise, Justin Martyr, having a