TedM

Just curious:

What early documentation would to you be both convincing and reasonably expected, as evidence of the truth of the gospel claims -- miracles and all?

Note that while one might say that if thousands of perfectly preserved documents were found in dozens of different places in support of the gospels would be 'convincing', it is not 'reasonably expected'.

Please do not indicate what you find 'UNconvincing' or 'UNreasonable'. This isn't a critique of what we have. I want to know what historical document scenario -- if any -- would be enough to convince folks that the gospel stories really happened 2000 years ago.

Your answer might be of the form "I would be convinced if ....."

Jaybees

The "historical document scenario" would have to include delivery method.

Should a winged figure suddenly materialize in my front room, accompanied by a blinding flash of light, the sound of trumpets and bearing golden tablets, I would tend to be convinced. I would also stop drinking.

Atheos

Part of this depends on what claims you're talking about. There are lots of claims. Matthew's zombie afternoon, John's water to wine, resurrection of dead people such as Lazarus and the centurion's daughter, walking on water, reversal of blindness and paralysis, etc.

As has been stated over and over again in discussions of this nature the more extraordinary the claims are the more extraordinary and unimpeachable the corroborating evidence must be. This is only reasonable.

For the more pedestrian claims such as that there was an itinerant preacher named Jesus who attracted a number of followers, pissed off some powerful people with his preaching and got his ass crucified or his efforts it wouldn't take much. Nearly any untainted and non-apologetic historical evidence would suffice for me. So far I haven't been exposed to anything I can honestly say meets even that criteria. It's not that I'm a pure mythicist, I'm not. I'm just a skeptic.

When it comes to the truly extraordinary claims I like to take the "alien abduction" approach. You show me a working space ship, a live space alien or a functional ray blaster using technology unavailable on our planet and I'll believe your alien abduction story.

There is no category of historical evidence that trumps "impossible." If the claimed events could not have happened in the way described then it is irrational to believe that they did. However, you show me a dude who can float unassisted into the sky and I'll re-evaluate my position on the ascension.

TedM

Your answer then is that no historical documents could convince you that all the 'miraculous' events of the gospels happened, correct? There is no scenario of documentation evidence that would be both convincing and that one could reasonably expect to have happened. Say a document that could be definitively dated to around 30AD that claims to be written by John or Peter, and signed by all of the disciples, etc...verifying that they witnessed the resurrection, and providing all kinds of detail, etc.. Not good enough?

BTW I see no diff between saying that a floating man is impossible and the creation of our universe is impossible, yet science supports the Big Bang and here we are..Just because we don't understand how something is possible it doesn't follow that we can reasonably claim it is impossible.

sotto voce

Are we really to believe that the man who calls himself Christ's Vicar on earth doesn't know that he is Christ's Vicar on earth?

Would this not be the most remarkable self-contradictory nonsense?

TedM

How is this question relevant to the topic?

outhouse

So who then? really existed in the past?

sotto voce

It's only Catholics and their Orthodox friends whose existence depends on biblical absolutism. Not Christians. As ought to be obvious, here.

So are we really to believe that the man who calls himself Christ's Vicar on earth doesn't know that he is Christ's Vicar on earth?

From the response above, do we suppose that Herr Ratzinger is conscious that he is nothing whatever more than Herr Ratzinger?

TedM

I've wondered recently what if something like that happened to me. Would I believe it? I guess it is moot--one can only know what they will believe in response to something after that something happens to us.

But at what point do we believe others? Strangers? Especially when they claim something that we currently might think is impossible? And worse yet, what if they aren't alive today? What if they made the claims 2000 years ago? Is there anything they could have said or done back then that would be enough for us skeptics today?

TedM

I"m sorry but I just don't know what you are talking about or how it relates to the topic. It is too obtuse for me.