Johnny Skeptic

William Craig:

“In order to show that that hypothesis (Jesus’ resurrection) is improbable, you’d have to show that God’s existence is improbable. But Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything about God. Therefore, he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable. But if he can’t say that, neither can he say that the resurrection of Jesus is improbable. So Dr. Ehrman’s position is literally self-refuting”.

One does not need a historian in order to adequately refute the notion that Jesus rose from the dead. Philosophy will do quite nicely. If God was actually willing to give something to mankind that cost him a lot, then quite naturally he would be much more willing to give something to mankind that cost him little, namely clearly revealing himself to everyone. The #1 priority of a loving God would have to be doing everything that he could to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. It couldn't possibly be any other way. God has not even come to to doing everything that he can in order to insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. If Jesus exists, if he returned to earth and made some more appearances, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. My argument makes sense because Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and other historical characters attracted a lot of followers based upon much less evidence.

Now really, folks, you most certainly cannot reject someone who you don't even know exists.

It is interesting to note that even AFTER the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, 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." (NIV) I find it quite odd that further evidence was needed since there were supposedly hundreds of still living eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, and thousands of still living eyewitnesses who saw Jesus perform miracles. Matthew 4:24-25 say "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

Now that was ALL of Syria, and MULTITUDES of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and Judaea, and from beyond Jordan, and yet, God chose to provide even more evidence. Whatever happened to "Oh ye of little faith"? We don't have any eyewitnesses around today. If more evidence was justified back then, then how much more is more evidence justified today?

At http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqfx.html, the quite erudite Christian apologist Glenn Miller discusses miracles, but inadvertently in the process gives skeptics an excellent argument against miracles. Consider the following from Miller:

Fales referred in the preceding paragraph to Richard Carrier's piece on Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire

(http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/kooks.html).

Carrier will say there:

"If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson believed when we composed his own version of the gospels, Jesus may have been an entirely different person than the gospels tell us, since the supernatural and other facts about him, even some of his parables or moral sayings, could easily have been added or exaggerated by unreliable witnesses. Thus, this essay is not about whether Jesus was real or how much of what we are told about him is true. It is not even about Jesus. Rather, this essay is a warning and a standard, by which we can assess how likely or easily what we are told about Jesus may be false or exaggerated, and how little we can trust anyone who claims to be a witness of what he said and did. For if all of these stories below could be told and believed, even by Christians themselves, it follows that the gospels, being of entirely the same kind, can all too easily be inaccurate, tainted by the gullibility, credulity, or fondness for the spectacular which characterized virtually everyone of the time."

Now, much of modern scholarship would already disagree with this position, as can be seen from a couple of authors:

"In antiquity miracles were not accepted without question. Graeco-Roman writers were often reluctant to ascribe miraculous events to the gods, and offered alternative explanations. Some writers were openly skeptical about miracles (e.g. Epicurus; Lucretius; Lucian). So it is a mistake to write off the miracles of Jesus as the result of the naivety and gullibility of people in the ancient world." [GAJ, rev 2, p.235, Stanton]

"This period [Hellenistic] may well have been the least superstitious period of antiquity, even if we have to allow for the continued existence in concealment of an undercurrent of the usual superstitions and belief in miracles. However that may be a change sets in with the beginning of late antiquity. Popular belief in miracles and superstition revived." [MSECT:269, Theissen]

"On the other hand it must be admitted that in the relatively peaceful and stable period of the first two centuries the irrationalism which first appeared at the beginning of the first century was unable to strike roots. There continued to be rationalist movements alongside it. In his dialogues Lucian mocked his contemporaries' belief in the miraculous. Oenomaus of Gadara mocked the oracles, and Sextus Empiricus once more brought together all the arguments of scepticism. Even where increased irrationalism was notable--for example in Plutarch's development--it remained within bounds, without eccentricity or fanaticism. There was no decisive change before the great social and political crisis of the 3rd century. AD. [MSECT:275, Theissen]

"Primitive Christian belief in the miraculous thus has a crucial role in the religious development of late antiquity. It stands at the beginning of the 'new' irrationalism of that age. Our brief outline of this development may have done something to correct the widespread picture of an ancient belief in the miraculous which has no history. What we have found here is not a rampant jungle of ancient credulity with regard to miracles, but a process of historical transformation in which forms and patterns of belief in the miraculous succeed one another. If we accept this picture, we must firmly reject assertions that primitive Christian belief in the miraculous represented nothing unusual in the context of its period." [MSECT:276, Theissen]

"particularly in the Augustan age, when intellectual life was inspired by the example of Alexandrian scholarship, there was a general desire for increasingly exact knowledge, and historians, like poets, were always on the alert to correct their predecessors." [X02:RCH4S:93, Woodman]

"It is in this light that we must judge the accounts we possess of other miracle-workers in Jesus' period and culture. We have already observed that the list of such occurrences is very much shorter than is often supposed. If we take the period of four hundred years stretching from two hundred years before to two hundred years after the birth of Christ, the number of miracles recorded which are remotely comparable with those of Jesus is astonishingly small. On the pagan side, there is little to report apart from the records of cures at healing shrines, which were certainly quite frequent, but are a rather different phenomenon from cures performed by an individual healer. Indeed it is significant that later Christian fathers, when seeking miracle workers with whom to compare or contrast Jesus, had to have recourse to remote and by now almost legendary figures of the past such as Pythagoras or Empedocles." [X:JATCH:103]

Johnny: Well my word, readers, I could not possibly have ever put together a rebuttal of miracles as good as Miller did. In review, Miller’s sources said:

“In antiquity miracles were not accepted without question.”

“This period [Hellenistic] may well have been the least superstitious period of antiquity…”

“…we must firmly reject assertions that primitive Christian belief in the miraculous represented nothing unusual in the context of its period.”

“It is in this light that we must judge the accounts we possess of other miracle-workers in Jesus' period and culture. We have already observed that the list of such occurrences is very much shorter than is often supposed. If we take the period of four hundred years stretching from two hundred years before to two hundred years after the birth of Christ, the number of miracles recorded which are remotely comparable with those of Jesus is astonishingly small. On the pagan side, there is little to report apart from the records of cures at healing shrines, which were certainly quite frequent, but are a rather different phenomenon from cures performed by an individual healer. Indeed it is significant that later Christian fathers, when seeking miracle workers with whom to compare or contrast Jesus, had to have recourse to remote and by now almost legendary figures of the past such as Pythagoras or Empedocles.”

Johnny: Miller must tell us why these spectacular occurrences, with no prior precedent or subsequent duplication in all of human history, failed to quickly create a storm of interest across the entire Roman Empire and beyond. History provides no such interest in the first century, at least not proportionate to what the response would have been if New Testament claims of miracles were true. Logically, the more unusual miracles were, the more that people would have been interested in them, whether or not they wanted to accept Jesus’ teachings, so the better that Miller makes his case that New Testament miracles were quite unusual for that time period, the worse he makes his arguments look.

Guest21595

Well I realize that, but the way he said it I thought it was that he said both as "percent" -- ".97 percent" (as opposed to just .97), then later "97%". From what he said of his calculation, the only way to get .97 / 1 would be that the ONLY explanation would be for jesus to have risen and that ALL other explanations would represent only 3% probability, which to me is absurd.

-jonathan

DavidfromTexas

The scriptures indicate that God's intention was NOT to clearly reveal Himself to everyone.

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." (Matthew 11:25-27)



Have you not read the scriptures?

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)



Your characterization of God is not based upon what is revealed in the scriptures. God already knows EXACTLY who will be going to heaven, and who will not... From God's perspective, the responses of His elect creatures, and their subsequent going to heaven is not a possibility, but instead is a choice and a plan that He made from before the foundations of the world.

Does not God have the power and the right to do whatever He wants? Does not the potter have power over the clay?

Consider the following...

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory..." (Romans 9:20-23)




Have you not read in the scriptures the following?

"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:27-31)

"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Matthew 13:11-17)


Christ will build His church on His own terms. There is no need for the Creator of all of heaven and earth to adopt the tactics of fallible men in order to bring in His elect.


Have you not read in the scriptures the following?

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:18-25)

Is there any better description of atheists who worship Darwinism than the above?

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.



Yes, it is interesting. Jesus Himself commented about the same phenomenon in John chapter 6...

"And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." (John 6:25-26)

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not." (John 6:35-36)

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (John 6:64-66)


And even those of His own earthly family did not believe Him...

"Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him..." (John 7:2-5)



You bring up some excellent questions here... The answer seems to be that there is NO amount of more evidence that would be enough to justify belief... No matter what is put in front of people regarding Jesus Christ, it is the Holy Spirit who changes the heart of a person in order for that person to believe Him. No amount of scientifically derived evidence, no amount of persuasive argumentation, no repetition of slick presentations, etc., is EVER enough to convince a person that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Belief in the Son of God occurs by what GOD does, not what mankind does... Jesus spoke of this in many places in scripture. One of the places is John 6...

"But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:38-40)

"Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:43-44)

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (John 6:63-66)


Thomas Jefferson rejected Jesus Christ because Jefferson could not accept the Christ as described in the pages of scripture. So then, what did Jefferson do? He created his own false christ. Jesus and His disciples warned of such developments.

Consider the words of Paul...

"... but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galations 1:8-9)

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)


Jefferson was a deist, he was not a Christian. In fact, he was a rabid anti-Christian.

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)



The only person who is the most trustworthy regarding the words of Jesus is the Holy Spirit Himself. You cannot place trust in mankind to give you the truth regarding Jesus Christ. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal Himself to you in such a way as to believe Him.



The above contradicts what you have written earlier, AND what the scriptures say! There were many who saw the miracles of Jesus, yet they did not believe Him. The scriptures testify of this... Very few people believed Him... yet would you have called those people "gullible", or "incredulous", or of having "fondness for the spectacular"?


I agree with the above... and the above is consistent with the witnesses of the scriptures.



Note the use of the word "irrationalism" to describe the belief in the existence of the miraculous. Whether it was irrational or not, is irrelevant. The miracles of Jesus were thrust upon the people of the period, whether they believed in them or not.




I agree with the above.

What happened as described in the scriptures was ANYTHING but usual.


The above is yet more evidence that what happened with Jesus Christ was astonishingly unusual.



???

I think that you are missing the point!

His was not a rebuttal of miracles, but instead was a rebuttal of those who erroneosly assume that the belief in the miraculous was widespread, and that such beliefs helped to support the creation of myths regarding Jesus Christ.

The answer you are looking for is in the pages of scripture... Many of the relevant passages were quoted earlier.


You are wrongly assuming that people would have embraced Jesus Christ on the level of some superstar Hollywood miracle worker or rock star. There was no such thing as Madison Avenue then, there was no rapid world-wide communication system, etc., etc. The scriptures provide explanations for why Christ was not overwhelmingly received... There was a purpose for Christ being rejected, humiliated, struck down, and killed.


Precisely!

Johnny Skeptic

But the Bible says that God is loving, and it WOULD be a loving God's intention to clearly reveal himself to everyone. If fact, it would have to be his #1 priority. It couldn't possibly be any other way if he is in fact loving. You could have no greater desire for your children than that they become Christians, and surely you take great pleasure in telling them about the Bible. A loving God's greatest desire would be no less.

What you said is a contradiction in terms. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

So, God loves the ENTIRE WORLD, and he IS NOT willing that ANY should perish, and yet you wish for us to believe that God's intention is not to reveal himself to everyone although the Bible clearly states that he wants EVERYONE to come to repentance. If God does not want to reveal himself to everyone, then that alone is sufficient evidence to reject him.

You aren't by any chance a Calvinist and/or an inerrantist, are you?

Johnny Skeptic

I did not say anything about embracing Jesus. My point is that if miracles happened, and if Glenn Miller and his sources are correct that the miracles would have been considered to be very unusual occurrences, there would have been great interest among people of ALL world views whether they wanted to accept Jesus or not, and surely some historians would have noted these extraordinary and unprecedented occurrences if they actually happened. However, as I said, "History provides no such evidence in the 1st century." Truly, if miracles occurred, they would have been the most widely publicized events in history. On the other hand, if the ten plagues in Egypt actually occurred, especially with hundreds of thousands if not millions of eyewitnesses, it is quite likely that those events would have been recorded by numerous historians in the Middle East, but of course, we know that that is not what happened.

Regarding "there was no rapid world-wide communication system", 'World Christian Trends' claims that there were approximately 800,000 Christians in 100 A.D., and it says that by 100 A.D., Christianity was widely dispersed over a sizeable geographic area, including Rome. Matthew 4:24 says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." Acts 21:20 says "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law."

If miracles occurred, surely Pontius Pilate would have been aware of them, and surely he would have contacted the Roman government in Rome, which would have caused an immediate investigation by Rome, and a lot of interest from a number of historians.

Precisely what? If miracles occurred, there would surely have been a lot more historical evidence that they occurred than the evidence that we have. It is interesting to note that today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then.

gregor

God created VARVES so that I might be deceived, believe a lie, and burn forever. 2 Corinthians.

madmax2976

Yes, and since that is rather contradictory concerning a deity that also is purported to want everyone to believe it exists, I count this as good reason to believe it doesn't.

I've read many. I have no good reason to believe they are from any deity.

I am not impressed by what is in the "scriptures". They are meaningless to me.

As far as I know, no such being exists, so no he doesn't.

Yes, I have. Still umimpressed and still have no good reason to believe they are the words of any deity.

I have no good reason to believe this creator exists, that it isn't just as fallible as we are if it does, or that it intends to have anything to do with an "elect".

I like mine better: The one who believeth in that which he has no good reason to, is a fool.

I concur, which is why I don't believe.

Except that I have no justification for such a belief as in the previous statement, and thus this is meaningless gibber.

Not true. There certainly could be enough evidence to prove this - it's just not presented. Subsequently, there's no good reason to believe it.

I have no good reason to believe that there is a God that does anything.

Thomas Jefferson created a Jesus that was at least more reasonable to believe in. There's no reason to believe the "Christ" as described by scripture ever existed.

Since no "true Christ" is known to exist, there can by definition be no "false Christ".

Yes, he saw little in the biblical deity deserving of our respect much less our worship and adoration. I concur.

I have no good reason to believe an entity such as the Holy Spirit exists.

I have no good reason to believe the scriptures are correct.

I have no good reason to believe anyone observed any miracles performed by Jesus.

Except that there is no good reason to believe this is true.

As far as I know, what is described in the scriptures didn't happen.

Sauron

That's too bad, Kosh. Because someone with a background in statistics needs to address Craig's 97% certainty claim here, and examine it critically. Otherwise, it'll take on a life of its own as an internet rumor and it'll get repeated ad infinitum.

Sauron

If they aren't real, cannot be observed and are non-empirical, then they aren't "things" in the first place. They are ideas or myths.

Your statement makes it sound like the only thing preventing them from being real is that they are imaginary. Well, duh.

Sauron

No. The fact that something is conceivable demonstrates nothing about the nature of the evidence (or lack of any). Ability to conceive an idea and the presence/absence of evidence for said idea aren't related in any way whatsoever.

But the fact that you had to invoke an alternate universe to illustrate your point demonstrates the real reason that miracles are rejected. Reports of miracles are not credible precisely because they have never been seen in this current universe.