Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

Times Online UK ^ | January 3, 2006 | Richard Owen

[starbase]

The professor sat down.

The young man's name --- Albert Einstein.

What's your source for this? I'd love for it to be true, but it sounds too perfect, don't you think?

[Donald Meaker]

What is your date for the authorship of Matthew? I read mine from the front matter of the "New American Bible" the one with the Catholic imprimature.

[Donald Meaker]

The older texts of Mark don't have the doubting Thomas narrative.

"I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am." Descartes.

[VOA]

AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this
month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

Heck, the priest's lawyer should simply start calling witnesses
like R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, etc. until the court
is either convinced or just decides to render a postmodern,
postChristian decision.

I guarantee if Sproul, Zacharias, Habermas, etc. were allowed to
speak their peace...this "news" story would just about vanish from
the news unless the judge rules against Christ's existence.
I suspect that if Sproul was allowed to cross-examine the atheist plaintiff,
the atheist would be babbling within about one minute. (I'm presuming
the plaintiff isn't in the same class as fellows like Michael Shermer)

This story will get the same press coverage as the Polish
Communists' artful TV camera-work that disguised the fact that
hundreds of thousands of Poles just happened to be in the
streets to meet John Paul II.

[Right Wing Professor]

Some people's credulousness knows no bounds

[red irish]

What about the Toledot Jeshu

[chronic_loser]

What is your date for the authorship of Matthew? I read mine from the front matter of the "New American Bible" the one with the Catholic imprimature.

Since Matthew never makes mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, although he gives the prediction of Jesus that it will be destroyed, that pretty much narrows it in before 70 AD. Most scholars put it between 55 and 70 AD. No serious scholars I have ever heard of put it after 100 AD.

[kenavi]

What about the Toledot Jeshu

It was a medieval document that apparently lumped together varying Talmudic references to Yeshu, not necessarily the same person, and treated them as applying to Jesus.

It has no ranking as a holy text, and I have never heard it cited in several conversations or presentations by pious and learned Jews from the old school (Eastern Europe).

[Donald Meaker]

The easiest way to get a prediction to be accurate, is to make the prediction after the event, but predate your prediction.

That is what happened to the prediction in Daniel. The one about Tyre being picked up and thrown into the sea.

The prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, to my mind, conclusively dates Matthew after AD 70.

[chronic_loser]

The prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, to my mind, conclusively dates Matthew after AD 70.

That is simply because you approach the text with an anti-supernatural presupposition, which is neither historically justified, nor demanded by "science" but is pure prejudice. Your comments on Daniel are similiar There is no "reason" to approach a book that openly presents a supernatural view of the universe with anti-supernatural rubrics already in place. That is, unless your object is to avoid at all costs any compelling universal truths which may have a claim on your commitment to your own cosmic independence.

[Donald Meaker]

I just think that it is a lot more likely to have someone pretend to have predicted something, than it is to have a supernatural being hand unknowable information down.

Other people have analyzed the book of Daniel, and the language appears to match the Maccabees timeframe better than the reign of Belshazzar ect. Now if you care for the supernatural explanation, the supernatural being could have emulated the language of 172BC in addition to providing 325BC data.

That is the problem with supernatural based religions. Jam yesterday, Jam tomorrow, but never Jam today.