sotto voce

You seem as educated as any. Can you prove that you don't know this? That is, can we have a reason not to consider this OP nothing better than a proselytising exercise in Catholic dogmatism, an essay in anti-free thought and rationality? Especially as it starts with

'Just curious'.

TedM

Wow. No. I consider this thread to be an invitation for free thought, because I am curious as to what people think about the issue.

It sounds like you think I am pro-Catholic or something like that. I wasn't raised Catholic, have never been Catholic. I was raised Presbyterian.

sotto voce

If, perhaps now sensibly, we discount the Catholic angle, we are still left with an inconsistent position, and possible red herring, that seriously misrepresents all Protestantism. Presbyterians believe in sola Scriptura, and Scriptura indicates that it matters not two cents, escudos, rupees etc. what anyone thinks about miracle documentation. One either accepts the message that one's sins are divinely forgiven, as resurrection demonstrated, or one does not. Miracles were for contemporary Jews to witness, not for anyone else. The fact that, partly because of witnessed miracles, Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah, the very fact that the NT was written, is sufficient evidence for accepting that sins are forgiven. To ask if documentation is required, let alone what documentation is required, is to indulge skepticism. It is to entertain the absurd view that deity cannot act supernaturally, which is circularity. How can Christians possibly expect people to believe that they stand in danger of eternal judgment if they do not even accept the supernatural?

Steven Carr

Perhaps if we had coins marking the reign of a new Emperor after the old one had died, and then more coins marking the reign of the previously deceased Emperor, after he had returned from the grave, that would be convincing evidence that the entire Roman Empire knew their Emperor had died and returned to life.

Atheos

This is a red herring. The existence of the universe is not impossible in any sense of the word, as its very existence demonstrates. The big bang theory exists precisely because it presents a possible scenario whereby the universe came to exist in the state in which we observe it, and because the theory is compliant with all currently available evidence. If evidence surfaces that contradicts the theory it will be modified (or discarded) as necessary to comply with the new evidence.

The very definition of "miracle" implies "impossible." Historical evidence only applies to those things which actually are possible. If it were common for men to go about walking on water then it would be rational to take the testimony of a few witnesses to such an event at face value. But since this is not in the realm of what rational people know to be possible it's not rational to believe such an extraordinary claim without compelling evidence.

So let's put the shoe on the other foot. We actually have signed affidavits from named witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon. Is that enough to convince you that the angel Moroni actually did lead Smith to an invisible mountain and that there he found the golden plates along with the seer's stone? If not, what historical evidence would convince you?

TedM

I didn't say anyone claims the existence of the universe is impossible, but rather its creation is impossible. That's in essence what atheism says: There can be no first cause of everything that exists. It's impossible. Yet, the evidence suggest that in fact there was a creation of all that is known to exist (ie our universe). As I understand it, those that propose multiple universes(ie Dawkins, Hawking, etc..) are operating not on scientific observation (as is the case with a Big Bang), but are relying on questionable assumptions in mathematics, and therefore are being driven by something other than demonstrable evidence.


Well, if you are going to define it as such then of course 'miracles' are not possible. However, that is just word play. We can't say whether being raised from the dead is a miracle, then..because we don't know that it is impossible. Just that it hasn't yet been observed (or so we think).

That's what I'm asking you for. For you, what is compelling evidence in historical documents for something that we tend to think is impossible? I think your answer is that NOTHING would be compelling enough for you. Is that correct?


Nope. I'm not sure how much more it would take, but I'm not willing to say that NOTHING would be sufficient, as you are.

TedM

This doesn't address the OP, which is about the gospel Jesus. It isn't reasonable to expect coins with Jesus on them, I don't think..

TedM

I'll take this as a vote of abstinence.

sotto voce

Really? Perhaps.

Even if you take it as a vote of abstention, it looks much more like implicit confession that those propinquitous Presbyterians knew very much that was true.

Vorkosigan

Miracles involving violations of natural law are not possible, so no documentation on that would be convincing.