McCulloch wrote:
McCulloch wrote:The writers of the Bible never once make the distinction between faith and blind faith.
Nor do they offer compelling evidence.
Realworldjack wrote:To say the above, would absolutely be based upon the opinion of each individual. It certainly cannot be said to be based upon fact, because there are many of us who have been compelled by the evidence.
[…] the question becomes, what did these men ask their audience at the time, to base their beliefs upon? Did they asked them to simply have faith that there was a Resurrection? Or did they actually point to, an empty tomb?
You see, if they were simply appealing to faith, then there would be no reason to point to an empty tomb, as EVIDENCE. But the empty tomb is not the only evidence that we have,
there is far more than that.
What compelling evidence did the writers of the New Testament provide for the resurrection? Is the
empty tomb argument compelling? What is this compelling evidence that is far more than that?
Okay well, there is no doubt at all that a man named Jesus, lived, had a great following, and was crucified by the Roman government. Next, there is no doubt at all that this man was placed in a tomb, and the tomb was later found to be empty, which is one of the evidences, that these men pointed to. This means there is no doubt that there were those who were claiming that the reason that the tomb was empty, was because this very same Jesus had Resurrected.
There is no doubt that they would have surely known that this would have been an extremely unpopular message, and quite extraordinary, and would lead them into all sorts of trouble, persecution, and even death.
There is no doubt that there was a man named Saul, who later changed his name to Paul. There is no doubt that this man, was one of those that were extremely opposed to this movement to the point that he would go out in order to hunt down these folks, even to the point of their death, which demonstrates beyond doubt that these early believers were indeed experiencing persecution for claiming to have seen Jesus alive after death.
There is no doubt that this very same Paul, was very educated in the Jewish law, which is one of the reasons he was so opposed to this movement. However, there is also no doubt, that this Paul who was the biggest opponent of this movement, changes his direction, to become it's biggest champion.
This Paul, goes on to live out the rest of his life, being this movements biggest champion, and leaves letters behind that clearly demonstrates this.
Next, we have the author of Luke. This man writes, not one, but two long and detailed letters. The first is about the life of Jesus, and the second concentrates on the "Actions of The Apostles", after the death, and claimed Resurrection.
These two letters were never intended by the author to be read by you, and I, but were actually addressed to a friend named, Theophilus, and the author surely had no idea that what he was writing would later be compiled in a book we now call the Bible.
In the second letter, this author tells of the conversion of Paul, and as the letter continues, it becomes solely based upon Paul, and his journeys. The author never actually mentions himself, but does in fact begin to us the word, "we" when describing the events surrounding the life of Paul, as if he was there to actually witness the events.
This author goes on in this letter with the journey of Paul to Rome in order to stand trial, recording miraculous events, while continuing to use the word, "we", again indicating that he was there to witness the events. This author ends this second letter with Paul being under house arrest, and claims that Paul continued to preach even though imprisoned, and this went on for some 2 years.
These are just some of the things this author records, but now lets turn our attention to Paul, and what he wrote. You see, Paul writing to completely different audiences, backs up what is said by the author of Luke, and Acts. In fact, Paul actually writes letters while under house arrest, which back up the claim by this author. Not only this but, Paul actually tells Timothy in one of the letters he writes while under arrest, "only Luke is with me."
WOW! Now whether you like it or not, or whether or not you are willing to admit it, that is pretty strong evidence right there! It is evidence that Paul was indeed under house arrest, it is evidence that Luke was indeed with him, and it is very strong evidence that Luke was indeed the author of both the "Gospel of Luke" along with the "Actions of the Apostles."
Since this is the case, we now can say with confidence that at least one of the Gospels was written in the lifetime of the Apostles, and if this is the case, then there is no reason to believe that the others could not have been written by those they were attributed too, which would mean that they were written within the Apostle's lifetime as well.
All of this means, there is very strong evidence of an empty tomb. Another reason we know there is very strong evidence for an empty tomb is the fact that, there are those who are opposed to Christianity, and they realize they must come up with an explanation in an attempt to explain away the empty tomb.
You see, these folks are not claiming that the tomb was never empty, and that "there is no reason to even believe that there was." Rather, because they understand just how strong this evidence is, they realize they must, and have to come up with alternative possibilities, in order to explain away the empty tomb.
Next, why do you suppose that there are those who want to cast doubt upon who actually wrote the letters contained in the NT, and when they were actually written? In other words, why are there those who claim, "these things could have been written decades after the events?"
The only reason to do such a thing is if one realizes that these letters themselves are very strong evidence for the claims, therefore doubt must somehow be cast upon them. Otherwise, why would anyone bother with them at all? In other words, if these letters are not evidence, and they do not contain evidence, then why would it matter, who actually wrote them, or when they were written? It matters for the exact reasons that they are indeed evidence, and they contain evidence that is compelling because again, otherwise there would be no need in these alternative possibilities, now would there?
So yeah, it is very easy to simply throw out questions like, "what is the compelling evidence." It is quite another to actually sit down, and examine the evidence.
Like, how in the world would Luke, and Paul fabricate such things? Listen, Paul had it going on before his conversion, but the evidence is overwhelming that he lived out the rest of his life, condemning his former life, and preaching the same Gospel he was so opposed too, to the point, at the end of his life, he spent at least two years in prison. What would "compel" one to do such a thing?
The thing is, there is reason to believe the Christian message, because there is very strong evidence to support it. Now, if you have examined this evidence, and you do not believe that a Resurrection actually occurred, then I am fine with that, because I understand that there are reasons not to believe. However, for one to claim that, "there is no reason to believe the Christian message", demonstrates one who completely ignores the evidence, and more than likely simply believes what they would rather believe, in spite of the evidence.
