Burden of Proof

Ron Webb wrote: Shasta'sAunt wrote: Why is it my burden as a Muslim to prove anything? If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but I would be interested in your response. Apollos started the discussion claiming that Jesus met the burden that no other religion could, let him back up his statements. Actually, he said that Jesus recognized the burden of proof, i.e. that his followers should not be expected to believe in his divinity without some strong evidence.  Obviously Apollos believes that Jesus met that burden.  Of course that is debatable, and I am equally guilty of distracting this discussion by debating it.  But I think after eighteen (now nineteen) pages, maybe it's time someone addressed Apollos' main point.  Do prophets have an obligation to provide evidence of their legitimacy?  And if they don't address that obligation, why should we listen to them?

Ron,

You recognize the point of my statements on this thread clearly. I also agree with you that Muslims could have answered my initial question with a yes or no in the same way. Since they have not so far done this, and they may well believe that objective reasons for faith are irrelevant, I haven�t bothered providing objective evidence for the foundation of Christian faith. I have summarized these before in other threads and you replied to some by objecting to miracles.

In any event, I repost a summary of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus here and the link to one of the earlier posts on this I made. Since you have already let me know your thinking on this, lets see if Muslims have an objection of their own. And if Muslims don't believe objective events matter, then they shouldn't imply that they do by trying to argue about objective facts. They shoudl just admit it and move on.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14316&KW=jerusalem+tomb+empty&PID=122708#122708

Summary of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

1) Jesus died by crucifixion, 2) Jesus was buried in a tomb, 3) His Death caused despair among the Disciples, 4) The tomb was empty a few days later, 5) The Disciples believed they saw literal appearances of Jesus after His death, 6) The Disciples were transformed from fearful and sad men to bold evangel­ists, 7) The Church was founded on the risen Lord message, 8) The message was proclaimed in Jerusalem where the crucifixion took place, 9) The Church grew, 10) Sunday worship was from the onset of the Church, 11) James, Jesus' brother was converted, 12) Paul, a persecutor of Christians was converted.

Unless one knows that miracles do not and can not occur, the conclusion is obvious. Without wrestling with whether one or two angels were at the tomb or whether Jesus appeared to Mary or Peter first, the core facts establish that people who were in the time and place to know, claimed that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. Persecuted, tortured and killed for their testimony we are left with no reason to doubt their sincerity. With no reason to doubt their sanity, we have great reason to believe that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Using history, eyewitness testimony and induc­tive reasoning just as we do elsewhere, we find that the resurrection of Jesus did occur.

Because the claim of the resurrection of Jesus is a question of history, I am not saying the evidence provides 100% certainty like a logical argument could � if one were possible. What the above evidence (summarized of course) substantiates is that there is great evidence that the resurrection of Jesus occurred in space and time. It is a falsifiable claim and it is at a minimum, a reasonable conclusion based on objective evidence.

Apollos

I hope your head is feeling better, Auntie.  I'm still way too busy, but I do want to respond to your post:

Shasta'sAunt wrote: Having established this as my core belief, I began to question the purpose, the meaning, why. What religious tenets most closely followed my own beliefs about God and life in general, did not abuse my moral compass, and made logical sense to me.

I don't know if you would go that far, but apparently you are willing to trust your ethical instincts at least insofar as they help you to establish the authenticity of a prophet.  But if you can trust your own instincts, then I wonder why you need a prophet.

I am not stating that God can not change His mind or direction, but rather that if this was the case and Christianity was the new direction, why wouldn't God make that change abundantly, irrefutably clear?

While there is no listed criteria for proving whether or not a man is a Prophet or Messenger of God, there are some guidelines:   the Prophet or Messenger should be of good character and known for truthfulness, goodness, purity, trustworthiness, and morality   he should be complete in his religious obedience to God, infallible in revealing God's Message and not inclined toward committing sin   he should be intelligent and wise with the ability to communicate the revelations given to him   The Prophet Mohammed fit all of these and more. Those who knew him before he received the first revelation from God knew him to be honest and trustworthy to a fault, therefore they did not doubt him when he told of the revelation.

I see no reason to believe that a prophet should be anything other than a human being, just like the rest of us.  If he has received and accepted the Word of God, then he should of course live his life according to that belief, but why should he necessarily be any better at it than the rest of us?