So is that it, Pericles? Your "clincher" argument from contemporary accounts is an argument from silence based on one single Egyptian philosopher?

Whether or not one believes in the resurrection of Jesus comes simply down to faith.

You either believe it true or not.

Serious doubt can easily be raised if the Bible is studied correctly.

The problem is that the intellectual pursuit of biblical matters is often suppressed because people are too scared to question.

BUT surely that is what we all should do! God allegedly gave us a questioning mind so why wouldn't he want us to use it.

Jesus allegedly said

John 5:22: The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.

BUT also

Luke 12:14 But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?"

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

John 12:47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."

And this

John 8:15-16: You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.

Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.

IF Jesus, the all knowing, all seeing son of God can't explain his role how can we truly accept any of the Bible as God's word?

How can a Christian read the Bible and not notice these obvious discrepancies?

How can we trust the resurrection story when the Bible is so flawed?

If you can reconcile the God of the OT and the God Jesus spoke about then you are way better than me.

If Jesus is God, as many believe, why did he "harden pharoah's heart" (Exodus 7:3) and then use that hardening to kill all the first born of Egypt? (Exodus 12:29)

Would your loving God do such an atrocious thing? OR allow his alleged son to be crucified?

In the 21st century shouldn't people start analysing before accepting myth as truth?

What an odd comeback, Trav.

>>So is that it, Pericles? Your "clincher" argument from contemporary accounts is an argument from silence based on one single Egyptian philosopher?<<

Of course it isn't a "clincher" argument, you funny little possum.

Any more than your unsupported rumours are "clincher" arguments.

I just happen to believe that the balance of probabilities favour the likelihood that had events of the magnitude and importance the bible purports to ascribe to them been going on in Jerusalem while our friend Philo Judaeus was hard at work recording his philosophical musings on the Jewish religion, he would have noticed.

It is not the silence itself that is significant to me, but the contrast between the biblical descriptions of vast crowds attending major events, and the deafening silence of anyone who was around at the time with a stylus and papyrus.

Your belief that all those stories in the gospels are truly ruly real is equally valid as my position that it is a load of guff.

My intention is not to dissuade you from your beliefs, but to register an objection each time these stories are claimed to be historically accurate.

Which, I have to say, is quite a frequent occurrence.

[What an odd comeback, Trav.]

It was not a "comeback", merely a clarification....

[>>So is that it, Pericles? Your "clincher" argument from contemporary accounts is an argument from silence based on one single Egyptian philosopher?<<

Of course it isn't a "clincher" argument, you funny little possum.]

Sorry buddy, you said it yourself [But the clincher, to me, is that there are no contemporary accounts. At all.]

So I asked you to clarify, and you only mentioned Philo, so it's a fair assumption that your clincher is based on the silence of Philo, no?

[Any more than your unsupported rumours are "clincher" arguments.]

So, events that are multiply attested to by early and independent sources are "unsupported rumours", but your argument from the silence of one person is a "clincher". ha!

[I just happen to believe that the balance of probabilities favour the likelihood that had events of the magnitude and importance the bible purports to ascribe to them been going on in Jerusalem while our friend Philo Judaeus was hard at work recording his philosophical musings on the Jewish religion, he would have noticed.

It is not the silence itself that is significant to me, but the contrast between the biblical descriptions of vast crowds attending major events, and the deafening silence of anyone who was around at the time with a stylus and papyrus.]

There were actually only a few events of Jesus which attracted large crowds. It's perfectly plausible to suggest that those few events happened but weren't recorded elsewhere. But even so, what IF those events were slightly exaggerated in terms of crowd numbers, or what if the followers of Jesus added in a story or two after the events? Neither of those possibilities phases me in the slightest, and nor should it phase any Christian.

There's nothing unreasonable about suggesting that, in the case that Jesus DID rise from the dead and IS the son of God, that a couple of stories might be added anyway, or that the apostles might write down that 3,000 or 5,000 were there, rather than 1,000 or 2,000

An interesting last post Sells, something almost reminiscent of the Polanyi quote.

An intriguing feature of late medieval epistemology in general, and of Ockham's (of ‘Ockham’s Razor’ fame) view in particular, is the development of a theory known as “intuitive and abstractive cognition.” In approximation, intuitive cognition can be thought of as perception, whereas abstractive cognition is closer to imagination or remembering.

Many like to proudly display their use of ‘Ockham’s Razor’ in their denial of “abstract” entities. William Ockham, however, certainly believed in immaterial entities such as God and angels but did not believe in mathematical (“quantitative”) entities of any kind. Reducing one's ontology to a bare minimum, therefore, will not guarantee the perfect perception of ‘reality’.

The new rationalism provided by the enlightenment was originally combined with a world view that was, as Polanyi said, “expected to set men free to follow the natural light of reason and thus put an end to religious fanaticism and bigotry… Humanity would then advance peacefully towards ever higher intellectual, moral, political, and economic perfection.” The ‘legacy of Christ’ (a term used by Polanyi), however, was to prick this ‘enlightened’ and rosy picture, and in support of Rousseau he enjoined “that civilized man was morally degenerate, for he lived only outside himself, by the good opinion others. He was a ‘hollow man,’ an ‘other-directed person’.”

Not waving, drowning, eh Trav?

>>So, events that are multiply attested to by early and independent sources are "unsupported rumours", but your argument from the silence of one person is a "clincher". ha!<<

(I particularly enjoyed the "ha!", by the way. Most convincing. Especially the exclamation mark)

There are two tiny flaws in your position, Trav.

One, that the events are not "multiply attested", as you claim, or even "singly attested", by anyone who was there at the time. And two, my argument is not based on the silence of one person, but many.

"Multply unattested", if you will.

>>There were actually only a few events of Jesus which attracted large crowds.<<

Only if you believe the stories in the first place. Otherwise, there could have been none at all. Which is an even more plausible reason why nobody noticed, is it not?

(I was slightly tempted to say "ha!" at this point, but resisted)

>>Neither of those possibilities phases me in the slightest, and nor should it phase any Christian.<<

For the umpteenth time, I have not the slightest interest in your being "phased" (see: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/faze.html) Trav, or to "phase" other Christians.

But while it's perfectly OK to believe whatever you like, you can't claim that you are in sole possession of the truth.

>>There's nothing unreasonable about suggesting that, in the case that Jesus DID rise from the dead and IS the son of God, that a couple of stories might be added anyway, or that the apostles might write down that 3,000 or 5,000 were there, rather than 1,000 or 2,000<<

Exactly.

The only point we differ on here is whether the embellishments were actually required, because Jesus was just this ordinary guy who preached a lot, and just happened to get himself executed for his ideas. The stories added colour, and turned an ordinary guy into a religious figurehead.

There's "nothing unreasonable" about suggesting that, either.

Have a great day.