ercatli

G'day Johnny, I'm sorry to reduce all your work to two statements, but you have made two assumptions without justification that I do not accept. Until you demonstrate these, I don't think you even have an argument for me to address.

How much do you know about the 1st century Roman Empire, especially remote parts of it like Judea and Galilee? I don't claim to know all that much, so perhaps you can answer these questions please ....

• Did they have headlines in those days?
• If they did, do you know what sorts of events made the headlines, and what didn't?
• What attracted the attention of the Roman Government, and how do you know that?
• What importance did the Roman Government place on alleged miraculous events in Israel? Were such events common or rare?

I have a few ideas on the answers, but your statement makes some assumptions about these matters that I'd like to see you support with evidence please.

And I'd also like to see your logical demonstration that "it is not possible to promote faith "and" tangible, firsthand evidence". Again, I have some ideas on that, but you have made the statement, so I think it is up to you to provide the demonstration of it before I venture to comment.

Thanks very much.

ercatli

Well, perhaps you could mention the books you have read by those authors, please, and we'll see if they say anything or nothing about their methods.

Thanks.

ercatli

Not sure if you are asking these questions of me, Zenaphobe, but I'll have a go. Do we have independent attestation of this alleged event?

ercatli

Mate, how would you demonstrate that supernatural events do not occur? (I presume you mean it is a fact that they do not ever under any circumstances occur as a matter of fact, and not just as an opinion?) What experimental design would you use to prove that?

Might be an inference if you could prove the initial statement. But the inference isn't proven either.

I'd be interested in seeing your reasoned demonstrations. Best wishes.

Johnny Skeptic

It is doubtful that there has ever been a time in human history when a person who performed many authentic miracles over a widespread geographic area would not have been a major news figure as spread primarily by word of mouth.

What first century, non-biblical evidence do you have that Jesus performed miracles? If the Romans did not pay any attention to the miracles, what evidence do you have that anyone else did?

Are you implying that no person working for the Roman government in Palestine would have seen Jesus perform a miracle, and would never have gotten curious enough to report the miracles to Pontius Pilate.

Here are the Scriptures again:

Group A

Matthew 14:28-31

“And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

Matthew 17:20

“And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

Mark 16:14

“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

John 20:24-29

“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Hebrews 11:1

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Group B

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Group A implies that demanding tangible, firsthand evidence is wrong. Group B implies that wanting an receiving tangible, firsthand evidence is acceptable. Today, many skeptics are asking for the same tangible, firsthand evidence, but there isn't any, at least not like the wisespread tangible, firsthand miracles that Jesus performed in public.

The texts in Group B show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims. What sense would it make for Jesus to criticize people for not having enough faith, and provide them with lots of tangible, firsthand evidence, which is the opposite of faith? If you get to see a flying pig, or a miracle by Jesus, regarding either case, belief would no longer be a factor since it requires little or no faith to accept tangible, firsthand evidence. How certain are you that the car that you drive exists? Are you more certain that it exists than you are that God exists?

If Jesus performed lots of miracles over a widespread area, why did he do it, and why didn't he want the Roman government to know about it? If Jesus made personal appearances after he rose from the dead, why did he do it, and why did he limit his appearances?

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, ercatli, please back up your "independent sources" argument.

Johnny Skeptic

Logically, it is not possible to perform many authentic miracles over a widespread area for three years and not attract the attention and interest of the local government, which in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus was the Roman government. In addition, if the Ten Plagues occured in Egypt, it is very improbable that only the Old Testament would mention them.

If true, the miracles that Jesus performed, and the Ten Plagues in Egypt were two of the most important news stories in all of human history, but the Bible is the only record that we have of the stories. That is much too convenient. What signficiant ancient non-biblical news stories do you have that would have attracted as much attention as the miracles that Jesus performed and the Ten Plagues?

It is interesting that the God of the Bible wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it, and wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that easily explains those situations. What you propose is the existence of a God who performed dramatic, unprecedented, widespread, tangible, firsthand miracles in front of thousands of people in many places, on many occasions, in spite of also making a big deal out of faith, which is the opposite of tangible, firsthand evidence, but went into hiding thousands of years ago and no longer has any interest in using dramatic, widespread, tangible, firsthand evidence in order to help keep people from spending eternity in hell without parole.

aa5874

So, can you tell us how you proved Your God exist and may have performed a miracle?

Now, by deduction, if there are no known cases of persons being dead for three days that have come to life, then it may be reasonably concluded that the resurrection of Jesus was fiction or was only believed to have happened.


And you cannot assume that because you are, admittedly, UNABLE TO JUSTIFY your statements about the resurrection that others are.

Please tell us what you are able to JUSTIFY about the conception, temptation, transfiguration, trial, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus?

Zenaphobe

I'm not aware of any other writing we have that attests this event, but it is written by a historian in whose lifetime the event is said to have happened. Certainly if he was making this up, someone would have called him out on it, yet we have no record of anyone in his day disputing his testimony.

The gJohn contains many things not attested by the Synoptics, such as Lazarus being raised and the wedding at Cana. What should one do with those since they have no support from the other sources?

I'm just trying to get a handle on how one separates history from fiction in the gospels.

Petergdi

What you say has no logic to it at all. The fame of miracles does not depend on their "authenticity" which is impossible to verify in any historic case. The analogy between Jesus' fame and that of miracle working holy men in British India is a good one. The fame of the miracle-workers was certainly real, and they did get some attention from British writers, but hardly the amount that your argument presupposes the Romans would have to have given the fame of Jesus.

This thread is not about the exodus.


It seems to be the way the universe works. If you don't like it, it would seem to be your problem. The universe will still work this way even if you decide not to believe in God.

Nonsense. Seeing a miracle wouldn't make you change your way of thinking and your way of living any more than it would have done for Herod. Do you think that seeing a miracle would cause someone not to take delight in another's misfortune? Do you think that seeing a miracle would cause someone to put the needs of someone they disliked ahead of their own? Do you think that seeing a miracle would cause someone to work extra hard to try not to carry a grudge? Being a miracle will help, but I don't see how seeing a miracle would.

The Gospel is not a laundry list of improbable things you have to believe. Believing in an orthodox laundry list can really help, but it is possible to give intellectual assent to the laundry list and have no idea what it is to be a servant of Christ or a child of God.

Peter.