Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross

"My opponent is taking the path of proving the legitimacy of the Bible by quoting its own passages" It's called internal evidence. What we find in it is exactly what we'd expect to find if it was written when and by whom it purports to be. The internal evidence is further supported by external historical sources such as the writings of enemies of Christianity like Celsus and Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, and the early Church Fathers. Is Con saying that internal evidence is not valid evidence? "and holding steadfast that since the Gospels were written relatively close (read: anywhere from 70-200 years after the birth of Christ) to the actual life of Jesus that this in itself provides some kind of proof of his divinity." I will merely ask Con to tell us what are the rules historians use to verify the historicity of the claims made by ancient documents? A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is the only way to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)... 1. Eyewitness attestation 2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred) 3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources) 4. Enemy or neutral source attestation 5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply made up) Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197. We have more than 3, but 7 Gospel writers testifying to Jesus death and Sonship. What is amazing is that unlike most classical writings of antiquity, the New Testament passes all five and more of the criteria set out above! It therefore has great claim as a historically trustworthy document. Jesus death is attested by a) Early attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD) b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD) c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD) d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD) e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD) f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD) g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah). Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." (The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50) The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus' death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5 The Church was faced with the problem of how it were possible for God himself to die, and what kind of Savior couldn't save himself from the cross. Such embarrassing details are unlikely to be Christian inventions. "I would like to make it clear that many of the apostles, if not all, were waiting until the twilight of their lives to record such important information." I have given evidence that the Gospels were written well before 70 CE, only 20 – 40 years at most after Jesus death; in contrast, the Qur'an was written over 500 years after Jesus walked the earth. Between Mohammed who wasn't there and the writings of the contemporaries who were around in Jesus day, it is far more logical to believe what the contemporaries say over Mohammed's Qur'an, regardless of how old they were when they wrote. People in their 80s can still remember far more complicated things than the simple fact that a man died and claimed to be God's Son, so their age isn't an issue here. "I do not doubt my opponents claim that a man named Jesus lived some 2000 years ago and quite possibly died by crucifixion." Vote Pro. "he must be able to prove his subsequent resurrection. And the only way he can do so is by putting the validity of the Bible above the laws of nature that we hold as scientific fact today." Con also puts the Qur'an above so-called scientific fact, so this is a non-issue. Con claims Allah exists. The scientific community disagrees a supernatural entity exists. But Con misunderstands my argument; I never agreed from science that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, that would be unscientific. Rather, my point is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and you can only rule this out if you can prove that God does not exist. Since Con believes he does exist, he can't rule out the possibility of resurrection. To rule out the possibility of miracles, he must also reject what the Qur'an teaches about Jesus' virgin birth! (Sura 19, Maryam [Mary], verses 16-21) What's more, scientific evidence points to the existence of God, things such as the fine-tuning of the constants necessary for life and the existence of absolute moral values… "I find it less than satisfactory that all Pro provides for evidence of something as monumental as the resurrection is a few passages from a manuscript written anywhere between 70-200 years after the actual event took place." I have given Con proof that the Gospels were written in the 50s and definitely before 70 CE to which he has made no rebuttal. Clements quotes Matthew in 95 AD, this alone refutes the possibility of the Gospel being written in 200 AD. "all of his sources are taken directly from the book in which this debate is trying to determine its validity." Not true, I also mentioned Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom mention Jesus death. Josephus mentions his resurrection. I have shown the validity of the documents as historical sources, I don't need to show them to be God's word. Con hasn't refuted the criteria for historical reliability or provided a more reasonable one. Nor has he demonstrated the trustworthiness of the Qur'an, so why should we take Mohammed's word over those of people who were there to see and hear what happened to Jesus. I will respond to the rest of Con's argument in my next post. Since the NT is more reliable than the Qur'an, vot Pro.