The Refutation Has Begun:Close: I am back. I got caught up in schoolwork and now I have a job but I am ready to debate again. Last time I tried to prove that God existed through logic. I have read all your previous posts on the topic of faith vs. logic and causality, and though I do not believe it I do not want to argue that, it does not interest me. I want to argue history right now. God is an abstract idea that as far as you are concerned is unable to be proved rationally. But the resurrection is a historical event that can be proved. Refute it. I'm ready for some apologetics.
:Sierra: I also agree with you. There is historical evidence that proves that a man named Jesus did exist and did die, and did come back to life. But the whole concept of a spiritual world is completely anti-aesthetic, and therefore doesn't make sense to me.
:MDG:Where is this proof? What is it?
First of all people may say you cannot prove that Jesus was resurrected from the dead because it can not be proven scientifically. Well they are correct. The scientific method is the measurement and observation of phenomena through experimentation. Dr. James B. Conant, former president of Harvard, writes: "Science is an interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that have developed as a result of experimentation and observation, and are fruitful of further experimentation and observations."
Historical events can not be proven scientifically. Jethro said, "OK. The resurrection is not an historical event, since it cannot be proven. That was easy." Maybe not so easy as you thought Jethro. According to you none of us were born, I did not go to my first class today, and in fact none of us have eaten lunch today because using only the scientific method no one can prove that we did thoes things. What we must use to validate the resurrection, and any other historical event, is "legal-historical proof." The scientific method is not appropriate for answering such questions as "Did George Washington Live in Washington DC" "Was Martin Luther King Jr. a civil rights leader" "Was Jesus Christ the Son of God" "Was Robert Kennedy attorney general of the USA" "Was Jesus Christ raised from the dead." These are questions in the realm of legal proof. In other words, the scientific method, which is based on observation, can not prove such questions. Only legal historical proof will be valid. But is there a systematic method that can be applied to historical research the same way the scientific method applies to scientific research? Yes.
Military historian C. Sanders lists and explains the three basic principals of historiography. They are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
THE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST
The bibliographical test is the examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies in regard to the number of the earliest manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and the copy we have. In this regard the New Testament is incredibly more reliable than all of the other notable ancient literature.
The History of Thucydides was originally written in about 460 BC and today we only have eight original dated about AD 900. That's 1300 years after he wrote. Aristotle's poetics was originally written in 343 BC but the five original MSS are from about AD 1100, that is 1400 years after he wrote. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 BC and the only ten MSS are dated 1000 years after he wrote. The Iliad, which is the second most reliable source of literature from the ancient world, has an amazing 643 MSS. But the New Testament is embarrassingly more reliable than all these. With over 20,000 copies of the New Testament MSS dated within 150 years from the events described in them the New Testament is the most reliable MS in the ancient world.
The New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee adds: "Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is likewise assured."
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST
:Floyd:There are several different, conflicting versions of this story, even within the Christian bible.
The bibliographical test has only determined that the text we have now is the same as it was originally recorded. But we still have to determine that the written record is credible, which is the purpose of the internal evidence test. At this point Aristotle’s dictum must be followed: "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." John W. Montgomery says: "One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies." To do otherwise would be to have a bias.
This ability to tell the truth is related to the witness's nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded. The accounts of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses or who related the events told to them by eyewitnesses. This closeness to the recorded accounts is an extremely effective means of certifying the accuracy of what they wrote.
But did the historians consciously or unconsciously tell lies? The accounts of the life of Jesus were being circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of his life. These people could have confirmed or denied the recorded events. When arguing their points, the apostles had appealed to common knowledge concerning Jesus. They not only said, "Look, we saw this," and "We heard that," but they also said, "You also know about these things... You saw them; you yourself know about it." One cannot say this to his opposition if he is telling the truth because the opposition would waste no time in pointing out any inaccuracies. Any such inaccuracies would have been pointed out and shoved down the throats of the early Christians.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, says: "And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so." And New Testament scholar Robert Grant of the University of Chicago said: "At the time they [the synoptic gospels] were written or may be supposed to have been written, there were eyewitnesses and their testimony was not completely disregarded.... This means that the gospels must be regarded as largely reliable witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST
:Floyd: “2) There is no independent evidence of the event, either physical or historical, other than the stories in the Christian bible, and”
The external evidence test covers whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony. What sources are there, apart from the literature under analysis? After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person disregards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he must also discard almost all the literature from antiquity. A. N. Sherwin-White, a classical historian, said: “any attempt to reject it’s [the Book of Acts] basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long been taken for granted.” Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology at Regent College says, (and in this quote even the brackets are from the source) “There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest [person] cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational [i.e., antisupernatural] bias.”
So comments like “But the whole concept of a spiritual world is completely anti-aesthetic, and therefore doesn't make sense to me” are admittedly biased. If an “honest” unbiased person takes a look at the evidence he would have to admit that the New Testament is a historically accurate account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the beginnings of the early church.
And as to your third point Floyd, I will address that in my next post entitled “Who Would Die for a Lie.”
