spin

The gospels for example lack at least four things:

1. they are unprovenanced;
2. they are undated;
3. they are anonymous; and
4. their purpose is not transparent.

They each contribute to the philological problems of the gospels.


spin

Chili

. . . but that is what I like about them. It makes them timeless like a raw diamond of unknown origin that invites us to cut, carve and polish it into a sparkling jewel that once everything has been said and done points directly at us and there will find a lady to match it and we call her Mary.

Appropriate at this time of year may I add that this would be how not she but we were pregant [with dispair] and while in the heart of darkness recognized this white candle in the Advent wreath to be our very own baptism candle now transformed to be the glimmer of hope that gives rise to this inward journey where we will find this child that is to become the father of man.

neilgodfrey

Apart from writings of Tacitus, what "secular ancient documents" does Holding have in mind?

arnoldo

It would’ve been impossible for the gospel writers to create a believable story out of whole cloth. Considering the importance of oral tradition in the ancient world the gospels obviously gained credence because the readers had heard earlier accounts of the events contained in the gospels.

For example, would you believe a supposedly factual written account of a man who was born, lived and died in Florida a hundred years ago who performed supernatural acts? Obviously you would not. However, if you had heard as a child accounts of this man from your parents (who had seen the person in question);reading such an account would be highly believable. At the very least, as an adult, you may doubt the miracles accounts written in the text but would accept that such a person existed.

arnoldo

Various historical sources claim that Alexander the Great was declared to be a born of a god/or a god. However these supernatural accounts surrounding Alexander the Great does not automatically make him a mythical, rather than a historical figure. Why should the supernatural accounts surrounding Jesus discount the possibility of Him being a historical person?

Johnny Skeptic

And where did I say that any person who allegedly performed miracles is mythical? Of course, I never said any such thing.

They don't, and I never said anything different.

The title of this thread is "Supernatural claims are different from secular claims," not "Everyone who is alleged to have performed miracles is mythical."
Muhammed allegedly performed miracles. Almost no one questions that he existed, but billions of people question that he performed miracles.

Is it your position that the methods of trying to reasonably verify supernatural claims should be the same as the methods for trying to reasonably verify secular claims?

Johnny Skeptic

In general, I agree with you, but in this case, I believe that I made a reasonable guess. I will do as I please unless the moderators say otherwise.

Have you publicaly criticized Holding at the Theology Web or anywhere else for his many inappropriate tactics, including deliberately misrepresenting what people say? I suspect that you have not. If you haven't, you have no business criticizing me.

arnoldo

One can examine both secular and supernatural claims with synthetic and analytical judgments (in addition with special and common experience). Logically, one cannot discount alleged supernatural claims since they may a result of an unknown variable. In the case of Jesus rising from the dead radical logic presents the following argument;

Just because at the moment we don't understand how something occurred in the past doesn't correlate to such an event never occurring. For example,man at the moment doesn't know how the universe or life came to be and yet it is self-evident that both events happened.

aa5874

Your response makes very little sense.

It is just most absurd and illogical to examine the unknown with unknown variables. It cannot be done.


But, the probability that there could have existed naturally relevant differences between Jesus and the rest of humanity is virtually ZERO since if Jesus existed he or she could have only been a normal natural human.

But, at the moment man knows that the miraculous events in the Gospel are not likely to have occurred as stated. Man knows what is humanly possible within reason or through empiricism.

And hundreds of years before the Jesus story was written, it was already known that the healing methods of Jesus could not achieved any real results.

The very origin and disappearance of Jesus is totally unreal and could NOT have been observed or witnessed.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, just please tell us what evidence you have that Jesus performed miracles.