TedM

I don't follow this at all. Are you talking about changed lives upon conversion as being something everyone who witnesses it deep down knows it to be a miracle? If so, I think that is wildly false.

TedM

I was referring to historical documentation too, but I guess didn't make it clear. As to the distinction between being unable to imagine such evidence and my concluding there could not be any such evidence, I agree the two mean different things. I suspect that in reality (the application of belief) the two are quite similar though. Not being able to imagine something often means being unwilling to try because you already know the end result. Don't mean to be offensive, just telling you how I interpret it. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

sotto voce

Which thought you are entitled to. But the observed fact is that most people become Christians not because they read about miracles, but because a relative or close friend is converted; and there is no fooling close friends and relatives. Behaviour changes, and adjudged to be no happenstance, and recourse is then made to the Bible. People extrapolate. It's why miracles are part of the faith of many millions, even if they are not committed to the whole thing, and have never seen a miracle. It's why BC&H exists.

Juststeve

sotto:

Wouldn't you agree that most people who become Christians were raised in a Christian environment and "became" Christian before they were old enough to give the matter much serious thought? The same seems to be true for Islam, Hinduism or any other major religion.

Steve

sotto voce

On the contrary. As I'm sure we mostly know, Islam, Hinduism, Romanism, Orthodoxy are all expression of the view that justification is by works. Christianity is the exception, precisely because justification is by faith in the Christ. One must understand what the word 'christ' means, especially here. Christians expect their children to make their own decisions, and do not accept any child as a member of the church merely because their parents are members. This principle of personal decision was what resulted in the murder of those who upheld it at the Reformation. It is now mainstream evangelicalism, which is based on the Bible, and nothing besides.

Infant initiation is impossible in Christianity, because personal faith and trust must exist, by personal decision, after which water baptism becomes only a form of public declaration. It is for Islam, Romanism etc. to explain how people become Muslims, Catholics etc. merely by being born to Muslims, Catholics etc., or so it appears. It is surprising that this point has to be made in a place called FRDB.

Jaybees

Aw, c'mon! A miracle IS a violation of natural law. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a miracle.

Atheos

How interesting it is then that in the New Testament, supposedly the source book for Christianity, the following clear statement is made:
These days I just can't help but smile any time I hear someone make such a definitive statement about "Christianity" as if their statement reflects a point on which all Christians walk in lock-step.

Even so, I think you've missed the point of the question. The point of similarity is not at what point whatever initiative act "officially" made the child a member of the club. It's the fact that even before they were officially in the club they already knew all the secret handshakes and had been indoctrinated with propaganda to (hopefully) secure their compliance as an adult.

As a rule adults follow whatever religious tradition (or something close to it) that they were indoctrinated into as a child. There certainly are exceptions. But they are exceptions because of the very fact that they do not follow the norm. Surely we can agree on this point.

sotto voce

There are modern versions available. Or can skepticism not withstand the light of day?

James referred to justification before men, in particular, before the church. James was dealing with incipient nominalism; the practice of calling oneself Christian while not obeying Christ, something that vastly increased, nevertheless.

But it is precisely that obedience that makes friends and family (who are quite often nominal believers) into fellow believers, and thereby into believers in miracles.

Atheos

I apologize for sounding offended. Going back and reading what I wrote I feel like it sounded needlessly polemic, not what I had intended.

Getting back to the core of the issue then, what would be "Convincing and reasonably expected early documentation" to support the claims of the gospel narratives?

We've gone around this circle before but just once more for the record the nature of the documentation has to be commensurate with the nature of the specific claim in question.

If there was a substantive collection of obviously independent corroboration for the fantastic events that are included in the gospel narratives it would certainly be enough to convince me that something happened. You asked us not to get into what we do have, so I'll try to avoid making any comments about the disparity between what one might reasonably expect and the obvious dearth of what actually exists. Other than that comment of course.

But to be convinced that something happened still doesn't equate to being convinced that what happened was the result of the miraculous. It would be irrational to assume (for example) that a bunch of dead people actually did rise from their graves and visit people as described in Matt 27:52-53. If credible independent documents demonstrated that a number of individuals made claim to having been visited by one of these apparitions, a reasonable first theory would be that these documents were the result of a hoax. This is far more likely for a number of reasons: First of all, we know that hoaxes have been part of humankind's interaction with each other for a long time. Secondly, with the lack of photography and literacy prevalent in the region and time period in question it's extremely unlikely that any given individual would be equipped to recognize the face of someone who had possibly died years, decades, even centuries before they were born. Third, we know how extremely unlikely it is that people actually did rise from their graves.

For these reasons, and for others already mentioned, the most reasonable stance one can take when evaluating claims of miraculous events is one of skepticism. For rational people it is always the first assumption. For anything else you're left with no better excuse than you just want to believe. Once you start down that path it's impossible to draw a line Santa Claus can't cross.

spin

The question is exceedingly difficult because of the nature of miracles. They are outside the ken of historical sources. As Hume has been mentioned already, he helps to elucidate the issue. The only reason for one to accept the incredible is in the circumstance that it would be more incredible not to accept it. This would mean that the evidence needs to convince the reader that it would be more incredible not to believe its incredible narrative. That's the theory. What would be your own response to the query, if it were aimed at, say, the miraculous things of Apollonius of Tyana, being in two places at once, predicting the death of Domitian, being assumed into heaven?