Can 500+ Eyewitnesses Be Wrong? (Jesus, Earth, disciples, Corinthians)

[JerryL]

I always subordinate "science" to the Bible, as I have made up my mind years ago that God, Himself is the Author of science. Therefore science cannot contradict God.

So are you a geocentricist? Or do you assert that the Roman Catholic Church (for the first mellinia or so), Martin Luther, and Jahn Calvin were all incapable of understanding the Bible and you are?

[Jaymes]

That statement a few pages back about 'sure they can be wrong, look at John Edwards' (or something to that effect; apologies, I don't feel like digging back pages to find the exact quote) has been in my head for quite a bit. If you ever watch some of the shows like Mind Freak or any other street magic shows, you have countless people willing to testify that someone's defied physics, levitated, read their mind, countless other things. They're convinced of it. How are they any more or less right than the people that saw Jesus turn water to wine or walk on water?

[WindsofWater2]

Is a mere written testimony (bible) about 500 eyewitnesses prone to be wrong?

It's a big gamble, and people don't always think before believing in it. I know I haven't at some point in life.

The big reason why Jesus is such an avatar is because he made the claim that he was God himself and put quite a challenge and fulfilled that challenge in people's eyes. Other spiritual gurus did no such thing ( at least most) and usually claim to just be another man. The controversy here is, many people newly feel that Jesus's words reflect that of what a monk or yogi might say, and it might have been misinterpreted by taking his words literally.

[joeboonda]

Sir William Ramsay, who at first was a skeptical archeologist, after 30 years of study, had this to say about Luke and the book of Acts. "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. Lukes history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness". Colin Hemer catalogued numerous archaeological and historical confirmations of Luke's accuracy in his book "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History" Roman Historian A.N. Sherwin-White said, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

I do not believe we can question Luke's historical accuracy in the book of Acts. It has been questioned before, and found to be extroadinary. 500 people eyewitnessing Jesus after the ressurection, and His being here for 40 days before the Ascenscion, is just one part of the big puzzle. If one truly searches, as I have, I do not see how one could conclude anything but that the new testament is true, and that Jesus is who he claimed to be.

SOMETHING happenned to the disciples on the day of pentecost! They went from cowering in their room to proclaiming the gospel. As far as dying for a cause, if they had NOT seen Jesus after he rose again, they would NOT die for it. But as they HAD seen him, they could not deny it, and did not. Here is the rub, many people have died for something they BELIEVED to be true, nobody will die for something they DO NOT believe to be true, unless they are insane. These men ALL died for what they believed except John who was exiled to Patmos. I believe they did indeed see Jesus after he rose again, and at pentecost were empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim it.

[painted wolf]

we've learned a lot since the 1800's... and having a Chemist tell you about Archeology and History is a bit like letting a Dentist operate on your lung cancer.

wa:do

[JerryL]

Sir William Ramsay, who at first was a skeptical archeologist, after 30 years of study, had this to say about Luke and the book of Acts. "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.

Google "appeal to authority logical fallacy"

I do not believe we can question Luke's historical accuracy in the book of Acts. It has been questioned before, and found to be extroadinary.

Certainly, then, you will have no problem referencing some of the more fantastic claims taht caused incredulity along with the proof that they actually occured.

You can also prove Luke wrote acts.

I'll be waiting.

SOMETHING happenned to the disciples on the day of pentecost! They went from cowering in their room to proclaiming the gospel.

I see the claim but not the support. Let's start with "how many can we confim existed".

As far as dying for a cause, if they had NOT seen Jesus after he rose again, they would NOT die for it. But as they HAD seen him, they could not deny it, and did not.

Riight. That's why no Muslims die for their religion, nor did any of teh followers of Korres, or Moon, or Da. There's not a single Buddist martyer, and certainly none who set themselves on fire by dousing themselves with gasoline. That's never happened, because that would bean that Buddism, Korresh, the Moonies, and the Muslims are right.

As far as dying for a cause, if they had NOT seen Jesus after he rose again, they would NOT die for it. But as they HAD seen him, they could not deny it, and did not.

Cool. Cite.

[joeboonda]

Right, they died for something they believed to be true (Muslims, Buddists, etc.) The disciples did too, if they had made it up, then when it came to losing their lives they would have said ok, ok, we just made it up, please don't kill us. But they DID see him, and DID die for it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by joeboonda

But they DID see him, and DID die for it.

Your evidence?

[constantine]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Your evidence?

A dvd box set...will tell you all the facts...
I wonder if 500 people even bought it?......if so why?

[Fluffy]

An excellent question, Fluffy!

My faith in God is based on my own personal relationship with Him. He sought me out, not vice-versa. At the time I got saved, I knew there was something missing in my life. A void, so to speak, was there that only He could (and did) fill.

This is not a blind faith, Fluffy, as now I can agree with Paul when he said in 2 Timothy 1:12 ---

I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED, AND AM PERSUADED THAT HE IS ABLE TO KEEP THAT WHICH I HAVE COMMITED UNTO HIM AGAINST THAT DAY.

I can also agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 1:16 ---

FOR WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES...

I guess I really don't know what triggered my conversion to Christianity other than the fact that God has embedded in us a desire to "look [up] for something better". An "upward pull" to "Something out there" ... if you know what I'm saying.

It's just a "feeling" that Someone is out there, anxiously awaiting to take our call, and that He has been here before.

I hope this makes sense.

Well I reckon me and you are talking about the same thing, just I call it blind and you don't lol . But that is exactly my point you see. Your belief in Christianity does not originate from scripture. Scripture backs up a belief which is already there. Which is fine by my account. However, do you really think that the reverse, ie belief from Scripture is possible or even a good thing?