mhaze

Having watched the video, out of it there comes additional interesting conclusions away from the main theme which of course was is the resurrection of Christ historically provable.

One was, people are motivated to believe a message, in this case the resurrection, or it may be ideological, such as a belief in Communism or Islam were two other examples in the video: Whatever the desire to believe lies an emotional response to the choice.
Point being here, proving an event such as again, the resurrection, to believers is remarkably unnecessary, since the believer is aligned through an emotional state to believe the message.
The Bible calls this condition “faith”. And right at this point, is the success story of Christianity.

I also subscribe to your belief (for want of a better word), viz;
*… If your criteria is that history must be by eye-witnesses then, apart from the Peloponnesian Wars and its aftermath, we know virtually no ancient history.…*

This also applies to medieval history, and in particular, Russian history.
Now the significance of this was in the related writings by Russian historical writers themselves, of Russian history, was to couch the complete period of Russian defeat and domination by the Mongol Golden Hordes, not as a humiliating defeat of Russia, but a sign from God who must be appeased for Russian sins. Defeat turned into religious symbolism.

Personally, I don’t like engaging in the “Proofing agenda” when the dedicated Christians I have known through the years would be simply horrified at the thought of any need for themselves of historic proof of Biblical events, especially the resurrection belief: They would see that need as a lacking in faith which they accept as truth from biblical accounts. They would not question the Bible in this way.

Dan

Dear mhaze,

Let me get this straight.

Alan.B wrote: “Even so none of those "books" were eye witness accounts of the event, but hearsay written at least fifty years after the event.”

You in reply say of Alan: “He equally confidently asserts that they weren't eye-witness accounts. Wrong again.”

I wrote: "It is unlikely any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses even given the protestations of the likes of mhaze."

And your reply was: “Well there are good arguments on both sides. On balance I'm agnostic on the issue but lean toward Matthew and Mark being disciples, Luke probably and John probably not. But to assert certainty on any of it is fraught.”

So now according to you Alan could be right, but it isn't certain?

Alan replies: “Eyewitnesses? Yes, but none of the new testament writers were eyewitnesses.”

You have retreated from your original assertion and ended up with: “If your criteria is that history must be by eye-witnesses then, apart from the Peloponnesian Wars and its aftermath, we know virtually no ancient history.”

Not the most well argued nor solid position is it and yet you started with such confidence.

Paul1405,

<<Again I ask if you have the evidence, other than the Gospels, for Christs (sic) resurrection and later ascension into Heaven, please put it forward. >>

That's a statement demonstrating you are not a true historian who wants to examine ALL of the evidence - including the Gospels. The New Testament and especially the Gospels have been tested to examine if they satisfy the criteria for being reliable. They do. See: (1) F F Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Inter-Varsity Press 1960). (2) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press 1987).

You are too late to try to tell me that I should go searching beyond the Bible to find something more reliable (and substantive) in Josephus and Tacitus. What is in Josephus and Tacitus is a pebble compared with the monument of trustworthy evidence in the New Testament.

Alan B,

<<Eyewitnesses? Yes, but none of the new testament writers were eyewitnesses. But used hearsay accounts to "pen" their differing versions, Albeit, with a possible element of truth?>>

What does Luke 1:1-4 tell us about his sources?

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

You don't seem to want to read the Gospel text and accept what it says.

OzSpen

1 Corinthians 9:22

Alan B on his global mission to convince the world of his superior intellect.

Dan

Dear OzSpen,

Surely the veracity of the Gospels as historical documents are also shipwrecked on the rocks of contradiction so profusely strewn among them (Hartshorne 1945)