freetrader

July 21, 2009 #6023697 / #156
Amaleq13


Why won't you give one example. None of the examples given in this page are comparable to the case of Jesus. No one took them seriously enough to write anything about them later or spread the word about their reputed deeds, of which there are very few examples given.

That they attracted a following in some cases is due to the fact of their charisma which they exhibited in speeches over a long career of winning over followers and then becoming mythologized.

If you think any of the characters named in this page are comparable to the case of Jesus, then name that one case and let us do the comparison. You know they are not comparable.

The best example there is Apollonius, and I've pointed out before that he had a long career of winning admirers, and because of his wide reputation he became mythologized. We have only one source about him, which is from 200 years after his life (assuming he existed), which makes the account far less reliable than the gospel accounts which were written about 50 years after Jesus.

The two cases are not comparable. This is not a case of a nobody being deified into a god or into a miracle-worker. Apollonius was not a nobody but a highly-reputed recognized figure of high status over a long public career, assuming the account of his life is at all accurate.

And the other examples from the page you cite are far less convincing than the Apollonius example.

Furthermore, if there is any credibility to the claims about these figures, that they did some amazing acts, then let's look at those claims, and if the evidence is strong, there's no reason to absolutely reject the claim. We cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that some of them may have demonstrated some talent to do something of a paranormal nature.


Where is the evidence that miracle claims were any more typical of this time period than any other period? or of this culture?

The cultures of China and India also had miracle stories. The only cultures that did not pass on to us accounts of miracle stories are those which did not have writing, or did not develop writing beyond the point of using it only to list dynasties and record names and dates and transactions.

There is no basis for insisting that miracle stories were especially typical of the Jewish culture of 100 BC to 100 AD. They were just as typical of other cultures and other time periods. Possibly the total volume of literature being cranked out was greater during this period and would account for a greater number of miracle stories along with other literature also.

But as a percentage of the total literature that has been passed down to us, there is no reason to say that miracle stories are somehow more prominent in this period or in this culture than in other cultures or other periods.

So we should expect to see Christ-like miracle-workers arising out of other time periods or other cultures besides just this one.

I know there is an urge to say "Of course there are others, they're all over the place -- the Jesus case is not unique." And yet, no one wants to name any example, because they just are not comparable. None of them is an example of a nobody being deified into a miracle-worker.

spamandham

A simpler explanation, is that the events never happened at all, and are simply stories in a book.

Amaleq13

This statement makes the willful nature of his ignorance blatantly obvious. The answers are provided in the article he clearly refused to read.

Rather than deal honestly with the fact that we have ample evidence of the gullibility of 1st century citizens (not really all that much worse than today, sadly) and that this fact completely demolishes his argument from personal incredulity, he continues to repeat his obviously flawed and entirely faith-based position.

Johnny Skeptic

Why should anyone accept that premise? How many firsthand, eyewitness accounts of the miracles that Jesus performed are you aware of in the Gospels? In addition, how many first century, non-biblical, firsthand, eyewitness accounts of the miracles that Jesus performed are you aware of?

I doubt it. In the best selling book "The Rise of Christianity," author and college sociology professor Rodney Stark estimates that in 100 A.D., there were 7,530 Christians in the entire world. That wasn't very many. Stark has an extensive and impressive bibliography of confirming sources to support his book, and he has written over 50 books.

I chapter 1 of "The Rise of Christianity," part of Stark's evidence is archaeology and papyrology.

I find it quite odd that a contemporary God would need ancient evidence to reasonably prove his existence today.

freetrader

July 21, 2009 #6023727 / #157
aa5874


Isn't testimony from a witness evidence, even though his statements might be false? The testimony is taken as evidence because it might be true and we don't know if it is or not. This testimony is one additional piece of evidence, but it might be false -- that it might be false doesn't disqualify it as evidence.

Do you mean that the claim cannot be used as evidence for itself? This makes sense if you mean that the claimant cannot just offer his own claim in response to someone demanding proof from him for his claim.

But still, if a guy walks into the room and says, "It's raining outside," that is evidence that it's raining outside. Even though he might be lying, still it is an indication that it's raining. Can't you believe it's raining outside if one person coming from there says it's raining?

We have four gospel writers who walk into the room, one after the other, and say, "This Jesus guy did miracle healings, and he also resurrected from the dead." If we ask them how they know, they give us several accounts where witnesses were present. And another walks into the room claiming the same Jesus resurrected from the dead and that 500 witnesses saw him alive after he had been killed.

Why isn't their report evidence that we might believe, just as we might believe the guy who comes in and says it's raining outside? One report alone is "evidence" for what is being claimed, and we have five, each of which is evidence. If you ask them for evidence of their claim, then of course they have to tell us something more than just repeating the claim. But the initial claim by itself is evidence for what they are claiming.

In the case of the Jesus miracles, we have five reports, each claiming there were eye witnesses, and one claims to know personally some who witnessed the resurrection event. So we have corroboration, i.e., reports from different sources.

So far no one here has explained what "corroboration" for a claim is other than additional claims which are equally uncorroborated as the first.

bacht

Rain is a normal natural scientifically verifiable phenomenon.

Resurrection is an abnormal unnatural scientifically unverifiable phenomenon. No matter how many eyewitness attestations we have it still remains highly unlikely. It's far more reasonable to presume that the witnesses are incorrect than that the known laws of physics have been violated (especially when this kind of phenomenon plays into the universal fear of death)

freetrader

July 21, 2009 #6024011 / #158
Zaphod


If Jesus had carried on his activity for several years, then yes, we should expect to have some reports about him from outside sources saying this reputed healer in Galilee is stirring something up, and there would have been some reaction.

However, he was snuffed out before his reputation was able to spread. News did not travel fast enough and the crowds were not yet large enough. All news was by word-of-mouth only. If there had been more time for the word of him to spread, those crowds would have grown larger, as more people would have come from farther away.

The time period of his public life was probably only 1-2 years. This was enough time to stir up local interest and attract crowds from that region, but not beyond.


There's plenty of reason to believe the crowds were large within that local area. But since the whole matter lasted such a short time, the knowledge of it never spread outside that area.


But added to WHAT "story"? There was no original "story" for the myths to be added to, if he did not do the miracle acts. You can't postulate that something got added to something else unless you first establish the something else that it got added to.

Miracle stories don't get "added to" a nobody. There has to be a somebody there, like a famous celebrity, to whom the myths can be attached.


No, the above doubts are not increased by such assertions about the historical Jesus doing miracles.

However, even if they are it doesn't matter. I am just saying something true, i.e., that we have good reason to believe, or it's a good possibility, that the historical Jesus actually did perform the miracle healing acts. Whether that increases or decreases someone's doubts is their problem.


I'm like that commercial that says "Saving you money is our job, how you spend it is yours." My job is to tell the truth that the historical Jesus probably did do the miracle acts. What you do with this truth is up to you.

Toto

Knowing full well how futile this is -

NO. Testimony from a witness is not necessarily evidence.

Testimony from a witnesses is admissible as evidence in a court of law, if the witness is available for cross examination OR if there is some other indication that it might be reliable.

It is the presentation of the witness and the cross examination which allow the finder of fact (the jury or, in some cases, the judge) to decide if the testimony is credible.

In the case of the Bible, you don't have witnesses who can be cross examined. You don't have any other indication that the claims in the gospels are true - in fact, you have many indications that they are false.

So you have nothing that could even be presented in court.

You seem to be trying to claim that there is "evidence" because there is a claaim, and if there is evidence, there is some possibility greater than zero that the evidence is true. But there is no evidence, and the possibility that the claims are true is 0.

You still have nothing.

You have failed miserably at convincing anyone that you know the truth. Your employer should fire you for incompetance.

Johnny Skeptic

Of course, but it depends upon the credibility of the source.

Sources please.

Why should anyone accept that premise? How many firsthand, eyewitness accounts of the miracles that Jesus performed are you aware of in the Gospels? In addition, how many first century, non-biblical, firsthand, eyewitness accounts of the miracles that Jesus performed are you aware of?

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:23-25

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. 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."

Logically, if those accounts were true, they would have attracted the attention of many people, including some non-biblical historians, from hundreds if not thousands of miles away, but yet non-biblical first century history makes very little mention that the accounts were true.

I doubt it. In the best selling book "The Rise of Christianity," author and college sociology professor Rodney Stark estimates that in 100 A.D., there were 7,530 Christians in the entire world. That wasn't very many. Stark has an extensive and impressive bibliography of confirming sources to support his book, and he has written over 50 books.

I chapter 1 of "The Rise of Christianity," part of Stark's evidence is archaeology and papyrology.

Just out of curiosity, are you proposing that Jesus performed miracles, or are you playing Devil's Advocate?

I find it quite odd that a contemporary God would need ancient evidence to reasonably prove his existence today.

Johnny Skeptic

How can the crowds be both "not yet large enough," and "large within that local area."