dog-on

Is it not equally possible that the belief in Jesus' healing was spread due to the story written by Mark?

In fact, isn't this a more likely scenario considering the fact that Paul seems unaware of any of these marvelous events?

show_no_mercy

freetrader isn't trying to argue that the "historical Jesus" did miracles. The "historical Jesus" doing miracles is an axiom of his. His entire argument is based on this assumption, and this entire thread is about him continually talking past everyone else since they don't accept his assumption.

Doug Shaver

I have considered that. I have given it a great deal of consideration.

It came about in exactly the same way that widespread belief in events that didn't really happen have come about throughout the entire history of humanity. Your argument from uniqueness is entirely fallacious. The stories about Jesus' miracle are in no relevant sense unique from other untrue stories that millions of people have believed.

freetrader

July 13, 2009, 11:03 PM #6015045 / #139
aa5874


[1]There is no known evidence that Julius Caesar conquered Gaul. Writers including one claiming to be Caesar "only made claims" that Caesar conquered Gaul.

[2]The claim that Caesar led Roman armies and killed Gauls "cannot be proven to be true."

[3]All claims about Caesar conquering Gaul "are uncorroborated."

What's the difference?

If all "claims" are thrown out as evidence, then there is really nothing from history that can be "proven" to be true, because all your sources are only claims someone made which you cannot verify or corroborate yourself.

I have agreed that the evidence for the healing acts of Jesus is less conclusive than the evidence we have for most major events recognized as historical, but to say there is "no evidence" at all is just simplistic and mindless, unless you are prepared to throw out huge amounts of known history and say history books are 99% fiction.

aa5874

Please show the world the evidence for the miracles of Jesus.

You very well know that none can be found.

There are only unsubstantiated claims.

It was claimed Jesus was conceived miraculously. There is no evidence that Jesus was ever born or existed as a MIRACLE.

Transient

I agree which is why you and the rest of humanity should not believe in this so-called "Jesus".
A god would have to be stupid to base the "salvation" thingy on belief in an historical event. Why the heck should anyone totally believe the writings of anyone in the past - I for one do not.
Case closed - there is no god.

gdeering

Ahhh, would you wager your everlasting soul on this question? What sort of evidence would convince you that Caesar conquered Gaul? Christians tend to be very slippery when they have to back up their specious arguments. I can offer dated physical evidence, contemporary reports as well as traditional historical records. I can do it though I know next to noting about the subject. If, based on your criteria for "historical existence" I am able to show that Caesar conquered Gaul (after you also define "conquer") then you must promise to tell all assembled that there is no similar evidence for Jesus, and it seems much more likely that he was a fabrication.

Or forget the challenge and answer this: What sort of evidence would convince you that Caesar conquered Gaul, and do you have anything remotely similar to back up the existence of Jesus?


Gregg

spin

Gaul came under Roman control at the time as various artifacts show. :huh:

Some of the battlefields have been excavated for their remains. :huh:

You don't need to rely solely on texts here. The evidence is hard. Perhaps there is some other way to explain why Rome started administering Gaul.


spin

spamandham

I'm ok with questioning the historicity of this conquest.

Maybe it isn't. Napolean claimed victories that never happened.

...whether this is true or false, it is possible that Caesar in fact did not conquer Gaul.

The big difference is, there's nothing unusual about the idea of nations conquering other nations, whereas miracles are extraordinary claims. One would hope this difference is obvious.

freetrader

July 13, 2009, 10:48 PM #6015113 / #140
steve_bnk


There are also historical facts strewn in the gospel accounts and other NT writings.

John the Baptist was an historical figure, mentioned in Josephus, and the alleged brother of Jesus, James (or "James the Just"), is also in Josephus. Of course there are other historical figures, such as Pilate, the high priest Caiaphas, and Herod Antipas who are mixed in with the gospel accounts. So known historical facts play a role for the NT writers.

Though these are not in the same category as Herodotus, it does not follow that the events they report are to be dismissed as fiction. Obviously most of them are unconfirmed by outside sources. But we do have these four separate independent accounts, having discrepancies between them, but confirming each other in reporting healing acts by Jesus and also events of his resurrection.

There are some early events related by Herodotus which might be less reliable than those in the gospel accounts, because of the greater time separation between the event and the written account. The 40-70 year gap between the historical Jesus and the gospel accounts is not abnormally large.

It's not unreasonable to say Herodotus is generally a more reliable kind of evidence, but it is wrong to say the gospel accounts are ruled out as evidence whereas Herodotus is always reliable.


That doesn't explain how the first crop circles originated.


No, those myth-busters just developed a technique for duplicating something that had long been observed in earlier times. There is no certainty when or how the crop circles first began.


And others who believe humans get struck and killed by lightning bolts yet have never seen it first-hand.


Sometimes the myth is true. But when it's a healing fiction that spread to many believers, it is always created for attachment to a popular hero well-known in the culture and not to an unknown obscure figure of no standing, such as the NT Jesus character was.


The gospel writers too report mostly what they find in their sources, which were earlier short documents and oral tradition, and probably some 2nd- and 3rd-hand testimony. The fictional elements they added were not necessarily of a different nature than the fictional elements added by Herodotus. There's plenty in Herodotus that can no more be verified than the gospel events.

The main reason to trust Herodotus and other mainline historians but not the NT accounts is the more prominent role of miracles in the latter, plus the dogma that these simply cannot ever be true. Except for this, the gospel accounts are just as credible as that of the classical historians.

The presence of the miracle element in the gospel accounts (or any other writings) does not ipso facto disqualify them as evidence.