Replies

A) Historians will NEVER say that Christ died for our sins. Deal with it. It'll always be about what he did in life, and getting executed for it. It WON'T be about dying for sins.

B) Historians will NEVER say that Christ was resurrected.

Geeze, do you flip out whenever you see a Discovery Channel special that doesn't mention either of these? Get over it. As far as history is concerned, Christ was just a regular guy who died for political reasons. Unless there's indisputable proof that he was resurrected (And face it, there isn't. Why else is it called "Faith"?), then no serious historian will ever claim that he was resurrected.

Historians will NEVER say that Christ died for our sins.

Which doesn't make what they say any less blasphemous. Historians will NEVER say that Christ was resurrected.

Which doesn't make what they say any less blasphemous. Geeze, do you flip out whenever you see a Discovery Channel special that doesn't mention either of these?

I'm not sure why you would characterize my comments as "flipping out" except that somehow you feel the need to posture for the lurkers. When you are done, please let me know. Woody.

Unless there's indisputable proof that he was resurrected (And face it, there isn't. Why else is it called "Faith"?), then no serious historian will ever claim that he was resurrected.

That's weird. Serious historians agree that Socrates of Athens existed, but I have yet to see any "indisputable proof" of that fact.

What exactly is "indisputable proof", anyway?

B) Historians will NEVER say that Christ was resurrected.

But historians (Tacitus, Josephus) DID say He lived. And history by His enemies (the Jews) say His body did not remain in the tomb. They said his disciples stole His body. His disciples (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul) all testify that He was resurrected. So we have two alternative explanations of the historical fact of the empty tomb. Which do you find more believable? That His disciples all were martyed and died for what they knew was a lie, or that He was resurrected?

Unless there's indisputable proof that he was resurrected (And face it, there isn't. Why else is it called "Faith"?), then no serious historian will ever claim that he was resurrected.

There is no indisputable proof for many historical facts. When there are ancient documents, there are various interpretations of the accuracy of such documents. Julias Caesar's historical work has only one copy known in extent--and historians believe it. There are 8,000 copies of the New Testement of various ages, from about 100 AD to 1000 AD.

There are very few indisputable facts indeed. Even Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" "I think, therefore I am", is disputed by those who believe all our behavior is deterministic and our feeling of free will is merely an illusion.

We believe what we have been taught to believe, generally, and what is consistent with our experience. Since I have experienced God in my life, I have indisputable evidence. May you also receive such evidence.