An answer to the geneology question…
The two lists are in reverse order and give a different set of names from David onwards (only Zerubbabel and Shealtiel appear in both).
The point, for Mathew is to show Jesus as the true King, descended from the royal line of David, as God had promised. He was listing the heirs to the throne, while Luke lists Joseph’s particular line. Mathew did this because he was writing to the Jewish community.
Mathew’s list is stylized and abbreviated to fit his pattern: 14 names from Abraham to David: 14 from David to Jechoniah: 14 from Jechoniah to Jesus. Fourteen is 2x7, 7 signifying perfection. Six sevens (3x14) are past the seventh seven is about to begin. Mathews list has two turning points: David the start of the monarchy and the exile (its end). His purpose is to establish a base for what will follow: his great theme that in Jesus scripture is fulfilled. It is possible that 14 is the numerical value of the name David, since the letters? consonants of the Hebrew alphabet served also as numbers: d(4)+v(6)+d(4)=14. Hope that helps in understanding.
Jesus Saves-but Espo scores on the rebound!-bumper sticker from the '70s-the heyday of the Big Bad Bruins!
DocT, I’m afraid this is is too off topic for even off topic.
This is what really pisses me off. You fuccers can start up and debate religion until Jesus comes back but next time just do it in the b.s. off topic forum so I don’t bother opening and it up and reading it.
Amen
Score:
Cleaning Jeans - 47
Jews - 64
Still a close race, who’s gonna win?
“I don’t believe in God but I’m very interested in her”
~ Arthur C. Clarke
Da Man- I believe the scripture is “He who seeks me earnestly (or with all his/her heart) will find me.” This is why diligently also fits in. I have never seen a bible that says early. You should look up some scholarly references because all of them say that the Bible has been translated down with 96% accuracy, the only thing in question is punctuation. That is pretty awesome to think about because the only other book to be passed through this ammount of time was The Oddyse which only was translated with 65% accuracy.
by the way that verse is Dueteronomy 4:29 if anyone cared to check it out 
Great verse!
Cake my friend, you crack me up.
It is good to get a good translation like the New International or some similar one. The king james is good…but no one talks like that or uses those words. Even with some misunderstanding of a few basic words…the message is the same though. No word or words are ommitted or mistranslated to take you off course. Just get a decent translation.
Invisible 3 has made a far better case than myself in some of these questions…I still have alot to learn.
As for Greek dawg…how did you just “mistakenly” read through the whole post…take that time…and then decide you were mislead into reading the whole post because it happened to be on the training and supplement thread? That doesn’t make any sense at all unless someone had a gun to your head dude!!..get real. You just wanted to try to slam the whole thing cause maybe you don’t like the message. No one forces you to read anything!!! That is of your on volition.
And for the rest of you whiners…if you don’t like the post…dont read it!..what a concept…amazing!!!
I use the genealogy arguement only because it is the easiest to make. Below I quote THE AGE OF REASON:
The book of Matthew gives, chap.1, ver 6 a genealogy by name from David up through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be twenty-eight geneerations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph, the husband of Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there are only the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two lists. I here insert both genealogical lists, and for the sake of perspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in the same direction, that is from Joseph down to David.
Genealogy According to Matthew: Christ, Joseph, Jacob, Matthan, Eleazar, Eliud, Achim, Sadoc, Azor, Eliakim, Abiud, Zorobabel, Salathiel, Jechonias, Josias, Amon, Manasses, Ezekias, Achaz, Joatham, Ozias, Joram, Josaphat, Asa, Abia, Roboam, Solomaon, David*
Genealogy According to Luke: Christ, Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Janna, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Naum, Esli, Nagge, Maath, Mattathias, Semei, Joseph, Juda, Joanna, Rhesa, Zorobabel, Slathiel, Neri, Melchi, Addi, Cosam, Elmodam, Er, Jose, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, Jonan, Eliakim, Melea, Menan, Mattatha, Nathan, David
*From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards of 1080 years; and as the lifetime of Christ is not included, there are but 27 full generations. To find therefore the average age of each person mentioned in the list, at the time his first son was born, it is only necessary to divide 1,080 years by 27, which gives 40 years for each person. As the lifetime of man was then but of the same extent it is now, it is an absurdity to suppose that 27 following generations should all be old bachelors, before they married; and the more so, when we are told that Solomon, the next in succesion to David, had a house full of wives and mistresses before he was twenty-one years of age. So far from this genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even a reasonable lie. This list of Luke gives about twenty-six years for the average age, and this is too much.
Now if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between them (as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of whom and of what he was, what authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the strange things they tell us afterward? If they cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe then when they tell us he was the son of God begotten by a ghost, and that an angel announced this in secret to his mother? If they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other? If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous? Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood? Is it not more safe that we stop ourselves at the plain, pure, and unmixed belief of one God, which is Deism, than that we commit ourselves on an ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent and contradictory tales?
Hell, while I have the time, here’s more to ponder. Again from THE AGE OF REASON:
I come now to that part of the evidence in those books that respects the pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended resurrection.
The writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was sitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the two Mary’s, chap xxviii, ver. 7, “Behold Christ has gone before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him; lo, I have told you.” And the same writer at the next two verses (8,9) makes Christ himself speak to the same purpose to these women immediately after the angel had told it to them, and that they ran quickly to tell it to the disciples; and at the 16th verse it is said, “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and when they saw him, they worshipped him.”
But the writer of the book of John tells us a story very different to this; for he says, chap. xx, ver. 19, “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week [that is, the same day that Christ is said to have risen] when the doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of them.”
According to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee to meet Jesus in a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very same time when, according to John, they were assembled in another place, and that not by appoinment, but in secret, for fear of the Jews.
The writer of the book of Luke contradicts that of Matthew more pointedly than John does; for he says expressly that the meeting was in Jerusalem the evening of the same day that he (Christ) rose, and that the eleven were three. See Luke, chap. xxiv, ver 13, 33.
Now, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed disciples the right of willful lying, that the writer of those books could be any of the eleven persons called diciples; for if according to Matthew, the eleven went to Galilee to meet Jesus in a mountain by his own appointment, on the same day that he is said to have risen, Luke and John must have been two of the eleven; yet the writer of Luke expressly, and John implies as much, that the meeting was that same day, in a house in Jerusalem; and , on the other hand, if, according to Luke and John, the eleven were assembled in a house in Jerusalem, Matthew must have been one of that eleven, yet Matthew says the meeting was in a mountain in Galilee, and consequently the evidence given in those books destroys each other.
Since this IS the training and nutrition forum, it’s only appropriate to pose the question: What do you think Jesus’ training program and diet was like?
If you look at most portraits of him, he was pretty shredded! I’m guessing he was somewhere between 5-7% bf. And he probably didn’t even have access to a good gym!!! I’m guessing that he did lots of bodyweight exercises coupled with 40 minute cardio sessions. Luckily, his omniscience probably allowed him to read Berardi’s articles before Berardi existed!
I think Jesus’ physique is a perfect example of how nobody can ever have any really good excuses. He had to save the world from sin and still found time to stay lean and cut. Jesus rocks!
Doogie, Just some stuff for you to chomp on while retrieve some more answers for you
Just part of an article that I thought you would enjoy, I know I did. The rest is at,
http://www.apologetics.com/
default.jsp?bodycontent=/
articles/historical_apologetics/
craig-resurrection.html
The Gospels Are Authentic
The point of this step in the argument was to defend the apostolic authorship of the gospels. The reasoning was that if the gospels were actually written by the disciples, then quite simply they were either true accounts or they were lies. Since the Deists granted the apostolic authorship of the gospels, they were reduced to defending the implausible position that the gospels were an issue of deliberate falsehoods. In order to demonstrate the authenticity of the gospels, Jacob Vernet (whom we met in chapter 4) appeals to both internal and external evidence.
Internal Evidence
Under internal evidence, Vernet notes that the style of writing in the gospels is simple and alive, what we would expect from their traditionally accepted authors. Moreover, since Luke was written before Acts, and since Acts was written prior to the death of Paul, Luke must have an early date, which speaks for its authenticity. The gospels also show an intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in A. D. 70. Jesus’ prophecies of that event must have been written prior to Jerusalem’s fall, for otherwise the church would have separated out the apocalyptic element in the prophecies, which makes them appear to concern the end of the world. Since the end of the world did not come about when Jerusalem was destroyed, so-called prophecies of its destruction that were really written after the city was destroyed would not have made that event appear so closely connected with the end of the world. Hence, the gospels must have been written prior to A.D. 70. Further, the gospels are full of proper names, dates, cultural details, historical events, and customs and opinions of that time. The stories of Jesus’ human weaknesses and of the disciples’ faults also bespeak the gospels’ accuracy. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for forgers to put together so consistent a narrative as that which we find in the gospels. The gospels do not try to suppress apparent discrepancies, which indicates their originality. There is no attempt at harmonization between the gospels, such as we might expect from forgers. Finally, the style of each particular gospel is appropriate to what we know of the personalities of the traditional authors.
Gottfried Less adds to Vernet’s case the further point that the gospels do not contain anachronisms; the authors appear to have been first-century Jews who were witnesses of the events. William Paley adds a final consideration: the Hebraic and Syriac idioms that mark the gospels are appropriate to the traditional authors. He concludes that there is no more reason to doubt that the gospels come from the traditional authors than there is to doubt that the works of Philo or Josephus are authentic, except that the gospels contain supernatural events.
External Evidence
Turning next to the external evidence for the gospels’ authenticity, Vernet argues that the disciples must have left some writings, engaged as they were in giving lessons to and counseling believers who were geographically distant. And what could these writings be if not the gospels and epistles themselves? Similarly, Paley reasons that eventually the apostles would have needed to publish accurate narratives of Jesus’ history, so that any spurious attempts would be discredited and the genuine gospels preserved. Moreover, Vernet continues, there were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Most importantly, the extra-biblical testimony unanimously attributes the gospels to their traditional authors.
No finer presentation of this point can be found than Paley’s extensive eleven-point argument. First, the gospels and Acts are cited by a series of authors, beginning with those contemporary with the apostles and continuing in regular and close succession. This is the strongest form of historical testimony, regularly employed to establish authorship of secular works; and when this test is applied to the gospels, their authenticity is unquestionably established. Paley traces this chain of testimony from the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas all the way up to Eusebius in A.D. 315. Less presents similar evidence, and concludes that there is better testimony for the authenticity of the NT books than for any classical work of antiquity.
Second, the Scriptures were quoted as authoritative and as one-of-a-kind. As proof Paley cites Theophilus, the writer against Artemon, Hippolitus, Origen, and many others.
Third, the Scriptures were collected very early into a distinct volume. Ignatius refers to collections known as the Gospel and the Apostles, what we today call the gospels and the epistles. According to Eusebius, about sixty years after the appearance of the gospels Quadratus distributed them to converts during his travels. Irenaeus and Melito refer to the collection of writings we call the NT.
Fourth, these writings were given titles of respect. Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Irenaeus, and others refer to them as Scriptures, divine writings, and so forth.
Fifth, these writings were publicly read and expounded. Citations from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian go to prove the point.
Sixth, copies, commentaries, and harmonies were written on these books. Noteworthy in this connection is Tatian’s Diatessaron, a harmony of the four gospels, from about A.D. 170. With the single exception of Clement’s commentary on the Revelation of Peter, Paley emphasizes, no commentary was ever written during the first 300 years after Christ on any book outside the NT
Seventh, the Scriptures were accepted by all heretical groups as well as by orthodox Christians. Examples include the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, and many others.
Eighth, the gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter were received without doubt as authentic even by those who doubted the authenticity of other books now in the canon. Caius about A.D. 200 reckoned up about thirteen of Paul’s letters, but insisted that Hebrews was not written by Paul. About twenty years later Origen cites Hebrews to prove a particular point, but noting that some might dispute the authority of Hebrews, he states that his point may be proved from the undisputed books of Scripture and quotes Matthew and Acts. Though he expresses doubt about some books, Origen reports that the four gospels alone were received without dispute by the whole Church of God under heaven.
Ninth, the early opponents of Christianity regarded the gospels as containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded. Celsus admitted that the gospels were written by the disciples. Porphyry attacked Christianity as found in the gospels. The Emperor Julian followed the same procedure.
Tenth, catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, which always contained the gospels and Acts. Paley supports the point with quotations from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and others.
Eleventh, the so-called apocryphal books of the NT were never so treated. It is a simple fact, asserts Paley, that with a single exception, no apocryphal gospel is ever even quoted by any known author during the first three hundred years after Christ. In fact, there is no evidence that any inauthentic gospel whatever existed in the first century, in which all four gospels and Acts were written. The apocryphal gospels were never quoted, were not read in Christian assemblies, were not collected into a volume, were not listed in the catalogues, were not noticed by Christianity’s adversaries, were not appealed to by heretics, and were not the subject of commentaries or collations, but were nearly universally rejected by Christian writers of succeeding ages.
Therefore, Paley concludes, the external evidence strongly confirms the authenticity of the gospels. Even if it should be the case that the names of the authors traditionally ascribed to the gospels are mistaken, it still could not be denied that the gospels do contain the story that the original apostles proclaimed and for which they labored and suffered.
Taken together, then, the internal and external evidence adduced by the Christian apologists served to establish the first step of their case, that the gospels are authentic.
The Text of the Gospels Is Pure
The second step often taken by the Christian thinkers was to argue that the text of the gospels is pure. This step was important to ensure that the gospels we have today are the same gospels as originally written.
Vernet, in support of the textual purity of the gospels, points out that because of the need for instruction and personal devotion, these writings must have been copied many times, which increases the chances of preserving the original text. In fact, no other ancient work is available in so many copies and languages, and yet all these various versions agree in content. The text has also remained unmarred by heretical additions. The abundance of manuscripts over a wide geographical distribution demonstrates that the text has been transmitted with only trifling discrepancies. The differences that do exist are quite minor and are the result of unintentional mistakes. The text of the NT is every bit as good as the text of the classical works of antiquity.
To these considerations, Less adds that the quotations of the NT books in the early church Fathers all coincide. Moreover, the gospels could not have been corrupted without a great outcry on the part of orthodox Christians. Against the idea that there could have been a deliberate falsifying of the text, Abbe Houtteville argues that no one could have corrupted all the manuscripts. Moreover, there is no precise time when the falsification could have occurred, since, as we have seen, the NT books are cited by the Church Fathers in regular and close succession. The text could not have been falsified before all external testimony, since then the apostles were still alive and could repudiate any such tampering with the gospels. In conclusion, Vernet charges that to repudiate the textual purity of the gospels would be to reverse all the rules of criticism and to reject all the works of antiquity, since the text of those works is less certain than that of the gospels.
The Gospels Are Reliable
Having demonstrated that the gospels are authentic and that the text of the gospels is pure, the Christian thinkers were now in a position to argue that the gospels are historically reliable. Their argument basically boiled down to a dilemma: if the gospel accounts of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection are false, then the apostles were either deceivers or deceived. Since both of these alternatives are implausible, it follows that the gospel accounts must be true.
Apostles Neither Deceivers Nor Deceived
Let’s turn first to the arguments presented against the second horn of the dilemma: that the apostles were deceived. This alternative embraces any hypothesis holding that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but that the disciples sincerely believed he had.
Humphrey Ditton in his Discourse Concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1712) argues that the apostles could not have been mistaken about the resurrection. In the first place, the witnesses to the appearances were well qualified. There were a great many witnesses, and they had personal knowledge of the facts over an extended period of forty days. It is unreasonable, therefore, to ascribe their experience to imagination or dreaming. Moreover, the disciples were not religious enthusiasts, as is evident from their cool and balanced behavior even in extreme situations. Thomas Sherlock responds to the charge that the evidence for the resurrection consists of the testimony of silly women by pointing out that they, too, had eyes and ears to report accurately what they experienced; and far from being gullible, they were actually disbelieving. He observes also that the women were never in fact used as witnesses to the resurrection in the apostolic preaching. Finally, he adds, the testimony of the men is none the worse off for having the testimony of the women as well. (This exchange obviously took place before the days of feminist consciousness!)
Paley answers the allegation that the resurrection appearances were the result of "religious enthusiasm’ (that is, were hallucinations) by arguing that the theory fails on several counts. First, not just one person but many saw Christ appear. Second, they saw him not individually but together. Third, they saw him appear not just once, but several times. Fourth, they not only saw him, but touched him, conversed with him, and ate with him. Fifth and decisively, the religious enthusiasm hypothesis fails to explain the non-production of the body. It would have been impossible for Jesus’ disciples to have believed in their master’s resurrection if his corpse still lay in the tomb. But it is equally incredible to suppose that the disciples could have stolen the body and perpetrated a hoax. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Christianity to come into being in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the grave. The Jewish authorities would certainly have produced it as the shortest and completest answer to the whole affair. But all they could do was claim that the disciples had stolen the body. Thus, the hypothesis of religious enthusiasm, in failing to explain the absence of Jesus’ corpse, ultimately collapses back into the hypothesis of conspiracy and deceit, which, Paley remarks, has pretty much been given up in view of the evident sincerity of the apostles, as well as their character and the dangers they underwent in proclaiming the truth of Jesus’ resurrection.
With Paley’s last remark we return to the first horn of the dilemma: that the disciples were deceivers. This alternative encompasses any hypothesis holding that the disciples knew that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus did not take place, but that they nevertheless claimed that they did.
One of the most popular arguments against this theory is the obvious sincerity of the disciples as attested by their suffering and death. No more eloquent statement of the argument can be found than Paley’s: he seeks to show that the original witnesses of the miraculous events of the gospels passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken in attestation to and as a consequence of the accounts which they delivered.
Paley argues first from the general nature of the case. We know that the Christian religion exists. Either it was founded by Jesus and the apostles or by others, the first being silent The second alternative is quite incredible. If the disciples had not zealously followed up what Jesus had started, Christianity would have died at its birth. If this is so, then a life of missionary sacrifice must have been necessary for those first apostles. Such a lie is not without its own enjoyments, but they are only such as spring from sincerity. With a consciousness at bottom of hollowness and falsehood, the fatigue and strain would have become unbearable.
There was probably difficulty and danger involved in the propagation of a new religion. With regard to the Jews, the notion of Jesus’ being the Messiah was contrary to Jewish hopes and expectations; Christianity lowered the esteem of Jewish law; and the disciples would have had to reproach the Jewish leaders as guilty of an execution that could only be represented as an unjust and cruel murder. As to the Romans, they could have understood the kingdom of God only in terms of an earthly kingdom-thus, a rival. And concerning the heathen, Christianity admitted no other god or worship. Although the philosophers allowed and even enjoined worship of state deities, Christianity could countenance no such accommodation. Thus, even in the absence of a general program of persecution, there were probably random outbursts of violence against Christians. The heathen religions were old and established and not easily overthrown. Those religions were generally regarded by the common people as equally true, by the philosophers as equally false, and by the magistrates as equally useful. From none of these sides could the Christians expect protection. Finally, the nature of the case requires that these early apostles must have experienced a great change in their lives, now involved as they were in preaching, prayer, religious meetings, and so forth.
What the nature of the case would seem to require is in fact confirmed by history. Writing seventy years after Jesus’ death, Tacitus narrates Nero’s persecution about thirty years after Christ, how the Christians were clothed in the skins of wild beasts and thrown to dogs, how others were smeared with pitch and used as human torches to illuminate the night while Nero rode about in the dress of a charioteer, viewing the spectacle. The testimonies of Suetonius and Juvenal confirm the fact that within thirty-one years after Jesus’ death, Christians were dying for their faith. From the writings of Pliny the Younger, Martial, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, it is clear that believers were voluntarily submitting to torture and death rather than renounce their religion. This suffering is abundantly attested in Christian writings as well. Christ had been killed for what he said; the apostles could expect the same treatment. Jesus’ predictions in the gospels of sufferings for his followers were either real predictions come true or were put into his mouth because persecution had in fact come about. In Acts, the sufferings of Christians are soberly reported without extravagance. The epistles abound with references to persecutions and exhortations to steadfastness. In the early writings of Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, and Ignatius, we find the sufferings of the early believers historically confirmed.
It is equally clear that it was for a miraculous story that these Christians were suffering. After all, the only thing that could convince these early Christians that Jesus was the Messiah was that they thought there was something supernatural about him. The gospels are a miraculous story, and we have no other story handed down to us than that contained in the gospels. Josephus’s much disputed testimony can only confirm, not contradict, the gospel accounts. The letters of Barnabas and Clement refer to Jesus’ miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus’ miracles. Ignatius speaks of the resurrection. Quadratus reports that persons were stilI living who had been healed by Jesus. Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ. No relic of a non-miraculous story exists. That the originaI story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions.
These facts show that the story in the gospels was in substance the same story that Christians had at the beginning. That means, for example, that the resurrection of Jesus was always a part of this story. Were we to stop here, remarks Paley, we have a circumstance unparalleled in history: that in the reign of Tiberius Caesar a certain number of persons set about establishing a new religion, in the propagation of which they voluntarily submitted to great dangers, sufferings, and labors, all for a miraculous story which they proclaimed wherever they went, and that the resurrection of a dead man, whom they had accompanied during his lifetime, was an integral part of this story.
Since it has been already abundantly proved that the accounts of the gospels do stem from their apostolic authors, Paley concludes, then the story must be true. For the apostles could not be deceivers. He asks:
Would men in such circumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw; assert facts which they had not knowledge of, go about lying to teach virtue; and, though not only convinced of Christ’s being an imposter, but having seen the success of his imposture in his crucifixion, yet persist in carrying on; and so persist, as to bring upon themselves, for nothing, and with full knowledge of the consequence, enmity and hatred, danger and death?1
The question is merely rhetorical, for the absurdity of the hypothesis of deceit is all too clear.
A second popular argument against the disciples’ being deceivers was that their character precludes their being liars. Humphrey Ditton observes that the apostles were simple, common men, not cunning deceivers. They were men of unquestioned moral integrity and their proclamation of the resurrection was solemn and devout. They had absolutely nothing to gain in worldly terms in preaching this doctrine. Moreover, they had been raised in a religion that was vastly different from the one they preached. Especially foreign to them was the idea of the death and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah. This militates against their concocting this idea. The Jewish laws against deceit and false testimony were very severe, which fact would act as a deterrent to fraud. Finally, they were evidently sincere in what they proclaimed. In light of their character so described, asks Ditton bluntly, why not believe the testimony of these men?
A third argument pressed by the apologists was that the notion of a conspiracy is ridiculous. Vernet thinks it inconceivable that one of the disciples should suggest to the others that they say Jesus was risen when both he and they knew the precise opposite to be true. How could he possibly rally his bewildered colleagues into so detestable a project? And are we then to believe that these men would stand before judges declaring the truth of this product of their imaginations? Houtteville asserts that a conspiracy to fake the resurrection would have had to have been of such unmanageable proportions that the disciples could never have carried it off Ditton points out that had there been a conspiracy, it would certainly have been unearthed by the disciples’ adversaries, who had both the interest and the power to expose any fraud. Common experience shows that such intrigues are inevitably exposed even in cases where the chances of discovery are much less than in the case of the resurrection.
Yet a fourth argument, urged by Less, was that the gospels were written in such temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events. Anyone who cared to could have checked out the accuracy of what they reported. The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred.
Fifth, the theft of the body from the tomb by the disciples would have been impossible. Ditton argues that the story of the guard at the tomb is plausible, since the Jews had the ability and motivation to guard the tomb. But in this case, the disciples could not have stolen the body on account of the armed guard. The allegation that the guards had fallen asleep is ridiculous, because in that case they could not have known that it was the disciples who had taken the corpse. Besides, adds Houtteville, no one could have broken into the tomb without waking the guard.
Sixth, even the enemies of Christianity acknowledged Jesus’ resurrection. The Jews did not publicly deny the disciples’ charge that the authorities had bribed the guard to keep silent. Had the charge been false, they would have openly denounced it. Thus, the enemies of Christianity themselves bore witness to the resurrection.
Seventh and finally, the dramatic change in the disciples shows that they were absolutely convinced Jesus had risen from the dead. They went from the depths of despair and doubt to a joyful certainty of such height that they preached the resurrection openly and boldly and suffered bravely for it.
Thus, the hypothesis of deceit is just as implausible as the hypothesis that the apostles had been deceived. But since neither of these alternatives is reasonable, the conclusion can only be that they were telling the truth and that Jesus rose from the dead.
The Origin of Christianity Proves the Resurrection
In addition to this fundamental dilemma, the Christian apologists also refurbished the old argument from the origin of the church. Suppose, Vernet suggests, that no resurrection or miracles occurred: how then could a dozen men, poor, coarse, and apprehensive, turn the world upside down? If Jesus did not rise from the dead, declares Ditton, then either we must believe that a small, unlearned band of deceivers overcame the powers of the world and preached an incredible doctrine over the face of the whole earth, which in turn received this fiction as the sacred truth of God, or else, if they were not deceivers, but enthusiasts, we must believe that these extremists, carried along by the impetus of extravagant fancy, managed to spread a falsity that not only common folk, but statesmen and philosophers as well, embraced as the sober truth. Because such a scenario is simply unbelievable, the message of the apostles, which gave birth to Christianity, must be true.
Empirical evidence of writings does NOT equal proof of metaphysical beings. End of story. Pointless.
WOW!..INVISIBLE 3
that was an extrememly enlightening commentary on the Gospels.
I dare say…it would take more faith NOT to believe in Christ and Him crucified and Him also creating the physical universe than to believe it!
Only someone too pig headed or hard hearted would deny the logic and detail of not only our existence being from almighty God …but also His divine revelation!
No other belief system has altered history forever and shaped mankind more than that of Christ Jesus!
That the Bible is the most popular book EVER in history is just another nice ace in the hole!
Doogie
I was hoping you read my earlier post concerning the way Matthew and Luke wrote their geneologies. If you would read up on your jewish history you would know that the names of the men written down were all heirs to the throne saying that Jesus was the next king. Luke list’s Joseph’s particular line. Matthew’s list is stylized and abbreviated to fit his pattern which I explained earlier! Luke takes the line right back to Adam, ‘son of God’. The two lists are almost the same from Abraham to David: then they diverge. AS A ‘SON OF ADAM’ JESUS IS REAL MAN; AS A ‘SON OF DAVID’ HE IS MESSIAH. His unique staus as 'son of God has already been made clear in the birth stories (Luke 1:32, 35)
As for your argument with age of the people listed in Matthew’s geneology, I truly hope you are not a Math teacher because that was the biggest miss use of statistics I have seen in awhile. I will have to take that to my stat class. You made so many inferences on insufficient evidence. All you did was take an average and that was that. If you dont understand what I am saying I hope you take the time to open a statistics book because I am not going to take the time explain it to you.
As for Phraedus I can tell you didn’t even take the time to read the article if you had you would understand. But you just read some of it, then decided to write what you thought.
Invisible 3…you are much more elequent than I am …and you have inspired me to learn and study more as well.
Its great to read when someone can refute accusations like…“well…the Bible has so many contradictions in it…blah…blah…blah…” and then they are unable to get specific AND if they try to…you can poke holes in all of their “theories”. As christians we should all be equipped to give a response on what we believe and why we believe because our faith IS BASED IN FACT…NOT FICTION OR QUESS WORK…
PtrDR, invisible_3: you two aren’t going to convert anyone here. Give it a rest. Please.
Just accept the fact that everyone who doesn’t believe what you believe is going straight to hell. You two have found the savior; all others are lost.
And for the love of all that’s holy… {gasp!} (was that blasphemous???) please take this ridiculous discussion to some bible study board or, at the very least, to the Off Topic forum.