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

Yes, the issue is uncertain. So when he confidently expresses certainty, he's wrong.

I know these simple things elude you, SR, what with your 30 minute expertise, but the Gospels were written in the life-time of those who witnessed the events. If they weren't written by actual eye-witnesses, they were written based upon the recall and/or writings of eye-witnesses. That they don't align in detail, is neither here nor there. Eye-witness accounts even today rarely align in detail and its the bane of the ancient historian that the sources that come to us from that period are often in conflict.

The death of Jesus was one of the most monumental events in history and we know little with certainty about it. Equally the death of Alexander was one of the most consequential in history (the world would be a very different place if he'd lived to 60 or so) but we also know nothing about it with certainty. That's the nature of ancient history.

Paul1405,

<<Is it a case of cut and run when you are asked to provide evidence for the resurrection and ascension of Christ.>>

The most reliable evidence for Jesus' resurrection and ascension is in the New Testament Gospels - which has been demonstrated in the research of Professor F F Bruce, "The New Testament: Is It Reliable?" (Inter-Varsity 1960 - now in 2nd edn) and Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press 1987).

I have no more evidence to submit as I've provided the best evidence and you refuse to accept it. May the rock around your neck bring you God's justice.

The book is over 2,000 years old and translated from several ancient tongues. When we go back to the original Greek the lords prayer reads very differently and lead us not into temptation becomes, do not put us to the test. And the book is chock full of such inaccuracies.

And therefore cannot be relied on as the literal word of God as the fanatic Ozpen demonstrates and uses as chapter and verse authority for his unique brand of intolerant bigotry?

Something the Master was never guilty of! As for my intelligence Dan, I have nothing to prove, least of all to abusive know-it-alls like yourself.

Foxy, the bible tells us not to cast our pearls before swine, it is as you have found, a complete waste of time!
Alan B.

OzSpen,

Luke 11:2-4 Is the basis of the 'Lord's Prayer'. Relevance?

I am not disputing Christ's crucifixion, a natural event that is documented to my satisfaction. The "5 act play" that is the Gospel account of that event is mostly unsubstantiated theatrics, but the basis is true. It's a bit like believing the musical play 'Les Miserables' is a true account of the French Revolution, it has a basis in truth, there was a French Revolution, but that's where truth ends.

Moving to the supernatural events associated with Easter, Christ's resurrection and later ascension into Heaven. They are far more difficult to prove, unlike the crucifixion, an everyday occurence in Roman times, there is corroborating evidence provided by both Josephus and Tacitus for that, but no corroborating evidence for the later supernatural events.

"trustworthy evidence in the New Testament" is your view, but not mine. I consider your belief a matter of faith, and I accept that, but its not an iron clad fact.

ps Both Bruce and Blomberg, possibly start from a position of bias, being committed men of faith. Not having read them, I do not presume to pass judgement on their works.

Diver Dan,

"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."

Precisely. We had a very long thread here a few years back where some asserted they could disprove the existence of a deity. The main protagonist finally admitted that they could do no such thing and hasn't been sighted since. The problem for people like OzSpen is that they get sucked into the 'proof' game. There is no proof of a deity, a resurrection, an after-life. There is no proof that the things the Jesus is purported to have down, were indeed done.

But proof is beside the point. The believers 'know' its true. They have all the proof they need. The unbelievers 'know' its false and no 'proof' would ever dissuade them from that.

If a scroll was found in the Dead Sea caves tomorrow that independently confirmed what the Gospels said it wouldn't make the slightest difference to either side. When Brian told his followers that he wasn't the messiah, it made no difference to them.

Scientists 'believe' there is Dark Matter. They have no proof of it. But their understanding of the world makes no sense to them if there is no dark matter. Equally Christians believe their is a saviour. They have no proof of it. But their understanding of the world makes no sense to them if there is no Jehweh, no Jesus, no resurrection.

Alan B,

<< When we go back to the original Greek the lords prayer reads very differently and lead us not into temptation becomes, do not put us to the test. And the book is chock full of such inaccuracies.>>

Do you read N T Greek and understand Greek grammar and syntax or are you simply spruiking?