Questions for a class I am taking

[EarthScienceguy]

I am taking an apologetics class and I thought it would be interesting to get your imput and discussion on the following questions.

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?
2. How much evidence do you have to support your most important beliefs? (name examples, if possible)
3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?
4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

[TRANSPONDER]

I am taking an apologetics class and I thought it would be interesting to get your imput and discussion on the following questions.

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?
2. How much evidence do you have to support your most important beliefs? (name examples, if possible)
3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?
4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

I doubt if this is really for a class - no educational class should entertain it. At best it might work for some class lecture of inexperienced 'don't care' atheists who can be easily talked into Theism of the Biblical kind.

The first point is intended to argue down the amount of evidence we would need to believe the Christian claims. The way it works is, that we don't need strong evidence that the shops opened today or there were a lot of flights out of airports. Those things can be taken for granted. Nor that a person has a dog as a pet. They might not, but it is perfectly credible.
However supernatural claims DO require strong evidence. It depends what the claim is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No 2 is the amount of evidence. Well, it depends whether there is a challenge. 'Teach the controversy' as they say. One has to trust the books, but we know what is being debated - the origins of the universe, but not the arrangement of planets. The dynasties of Egypt are to be credited, but the |Bronze age collapse is still debated. That Quantum mechanics is true is really a thing to trust, but String theory is still debated. I have had all or enough questions answered about evolution and knocking down the objections to it that I am sure this contested theory is valid and the Creationist objections are not.

3. History is always tricky. I would not doubt that Pilate was a real person, even without the inscription found at Caesarea. But I am aware that Josephus and Philo recount a similar type of fellow, but the accounts of his governorship don't really match. Thus, just because the records of Jesus don't always match up, does that discredit him? Aside from a Faithbased religious industry with an axe to grind, authority to be protected and millions to be made of course saying it's true, there is the case again of what is credible and what is not, a king who won an astonishing number of battles or a man who could actually do miracles. The evidence has to be extraordinary. And it claims to be eyewitness or at least 2nd hand. I am sure it is not. Even the basic story (which is remarkably short) when all the contradictions are removed is not to be trusted and shows signs of an original single story by people who could not have been telling the truth. e.g no Passover release custom is known, and the Blasphemy charge makes no sense.

So given that we have images, coins and mentions of Julius Caesar and Alexander, that we have single source accounts does not actually make their recorded history untrustworthy. But after all, if we had to dismiss Sennacherib, Leonidas, Alexander, Caesar and Belisarius, we would certainly have to scrap Jesus too.

four sure. If a strong case could be made I'd want to know it. I think a strong case can be made for a historical Jesus. Galilean and crucified (a made up one would have been a Judean and stoned for blasphemy). But I think a strong case can be better made against so much of the Gospels; the nativity to start and the resurrection, to finish. And a lot of stuff in between, and mainly based on that old standby of courtroom testimony struck down - contradiction

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

I doubt if this is really for a class - no educational class should entertain it. At best it might work for some class lecture of inexperienced 'don't care' atheists who can be easily talked into Theism of the Biblical kind.

It actually is and assigned assignment. However, I do tend to agree with you, that this is a rather silly assignment. I will be writing the professor about this assignment telling him what I think of this assignment when the class is finished but thank you for your answers.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

I will give the professor your everything that you wrote.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

I just read through your answers and I think that are great. Those are the issues.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

I just read through your answers and I think that are great. Those are the issues.

Please do. I should like to know what the professor was after. Those points look so much like deceptive Bible propaganda designed to make us doubt the validity of evidence in hopes to make ONE Faith claim (the others being ignored) more credible.

[Data]

I am taking an apologetics class and I thought it would be interesting to get your imput and discussion on the following questions.

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?

It is important that I have evidence for and against. I don't think of it in terms of strong or weak.

2. How much evidence do you have to support your most important beliefs? (name examples, if possible)

Never enough. The prophecy of Cyrus is the best example.

3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?

Absolutely accurate for the most part. Though translation does a number on the cross. Jesus didn't die on a Roman cross. I judge his historicity on the Bible rather than theology or tradition. He never said "he is without sin throw the first stone." That's a spurious scripture. He never considered himself equal to Jehovah God, or some part of the pagan trinity adopted by apostate Christianity.

You don't have to go back far to see how tradition can distort historical figures. Paul Revere riding through the town on a horse shouting "The British are coming" is pretty silly given they were all British. A British colony. George Washington as first president, had wooden teeth, never told a lie is silly. He was a politician who cheated on his wife. He was a natural born liar.

Snagged this from the Watchtower.

“For Cæsar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Cæsar’s day.
“Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century.
“Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. . . .
“The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.
“The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” - Professor F. F. Bruce: The Books and the Parchments, page 180.

4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

Apparently, this is directed at unbelievers. As a believer I would want to know if it weren't true.

[POI]

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?

It depends. It depends on the claim. If someone is running track, and I've seen them run the 100 meters several times, and they generally get 11 seconds flat, but then all of a sudden, when I'm not present, claim to get a 9.9, I would need more evidence. So it depends on the claim. Otherwise, if this person claimed to get an 11:03, outside my presence, I would likely just take them at their word. And I could always look it up too, for good measure

2. How much evidence do you have to support your most important beliefs? (name examples, if possible)

I see this as an old apologetics tactic. The goal is to ultimately get the skeptic to conclude that belief in (Jesus's resurrection) is just as supported as your own belief(s) in whatever, as we rarely really think about why we believe what we believe. The lay person does not sit down and go over their reasons for belief in a core belief. Hence, when asked, being they have not really analyzed this too much, they are caught like a dear in headlights. Which-in-turn gives them no valid cause to accuse the (Jesus resurrection believer) in being hasty or irrational in their belief. It's a deliberate trick. In essence, "we all have unfounded beliefs, so my beliefs are no more unsupported than yours". Don't fall for it.

3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?

Well, all we really have, to support the claims about Jesus, is the Bible itself. I guess the first question would be, is the Bible reliable? Based on my studies, thus far, I guess he existed? But it's one thing to be a man who was claimed to have lived, preached, and was killed for blasphemy/other. It's ANOTHER thing to believe he was born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the sick, rose the dead, and rose after a crucifixion. Just like I may believe Alexander the great was a war hero but was not necessarily the son of Zeus. And in regard to Alexander, how do we know he existed, outside a claim from a book? For Jesus, we have a book. For Alexander, is all we have is a claim from a book?

4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

Yes. But IS there a strong case to be made that he rose? And if so, what is this strong case?

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

I just read through your answers and I think that are great. Those are the issues.

Please do. I should like to know what the professor was after. Those points look so much like deceptive Bible propaganda designed to make us doubt the validity of evidence in hopes to make ONE Faith claim (the others being ignored) more credible.

I could not agree more. I see it often. 'We all have faith in something."

[1213]

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?

For me more important than evidence is how reasonable something is. For example, I believe Jesus, because I think his teachings are good and reasonable. The idea to love others is good, regardless how much evidence I have for that Jesus is real. This is why I don't really need much evidence for the existence of Jesus.

3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?

I believe Bible is accurate and true. And for me one evidence for that is that anti-Christians have attacked the teachings about 2000 years and failed.

4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

It would be nice to know, but I think that is secondary information. The reasonability of the teachings of Jesus don't depend on the information is Jesus real.