GakuseiDon

Andrew, FYI: Johnny is either unwilling or incapable of holding debate on any topic. He is the Questionator: an unstoppable question-generating machine, with little regard to OPs and thread integrity. Engage at own risk.

Roger Pearse

I don't see that any of this requires any response from me.

QED.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cheerful Charlie

All we get from the bible is contradictory tall tales. Yeah, sure the saints arose from their graves when Jesus was crucified. Again, we have big promises of miracle working abilities. John 14, Mark 11, none work.
We have tall tales and lies about the miracles of Jesus. Was the miracle at Cana the first miracle as per John? Water to Wine at Cana is not known at all by the synoptics. The fake miracles contradict each other wildy as to who, what, when. All told by anonymous, notable liars.

The Bible divides us into two kinds of people, atheists and the child-like and gullible.

There is good reason not to believe any of this. Start with John 14:12-4. When you get the big miracle working abilities as per promises of Jesus, come tell us.

CC

Toto

I would like to remind people to stick to the topic, the assessment of supernatural claims in religious books, with the implication being how a secular historian operating in the modern world assesses supernatural claims.

Please keep personal or inflammatory comments out of the discussion.

Johnny Skeptic

Those comments are quite odd coming from someone who is a very liberal Christian, does not promote the Resurrection, and does not promote any Biblical supernatural claims at all, but simply promotes "love your neighbor."

Since you do not like my approach, how do you propose that people examine supernatural claims in all religious texts, claims that you yourself do not believe?

I do not have any idea why you attack me like to do. I am an agnostic. I do not promote evolution. I do not promote atheism. I do not discount a reasonable possibility than an intellgent being created the universe. I have agreed with you that "love your neighbor" is a good philosophy for people to live by. What do you want me to do, say that I believe in some kind of God, say that I believe that supernatural events occur, and stop criticizing fundamentalist Christians? Millions of people around the world oppose religious fundamentalism in various religions, and rightly so. You once said at the GRD Forum that you do your part to oppose Christian fundamentalism, but I have never seen you in a lengthy debate with a fundamentalist Christian at this forum, or at any other forum.

At the GRD Forum, I once defended Febble, who is a very liberal Christian like you, when atheists attacked her. I should think that you would be pleased with that.

As intelligent as you are, you ought to know that personal attacks will not get you anywhere. You are discrediting yourself by attacking me. You have already gotten a moderator's warning in the past at the GRD via private message for your inflammatory attacks against me.

Jubal_DiGriz

Aside from has been already been said, I like to apply a kind of "uniformitarianism" to extraordinary claims. If it doesn't happen now, why did it happen then? While we can't quite apply that to Jesus (because of his singular nature), the Bible in all parts makes mention of magic, spells, the power of false gods, faith healing, and a number of other odd things. Many of these, read in context, could be said to be part of the normal background of events.

Since none of these things happen now, despite Biblical assertion that at one time this was common (or at least well known to have happened), it is reasonable question the veracity of Biblical claims to extraordinary events. If no good answer to be given to why these things once happened but have now stopped, it is reasonable to say they never happened at all.

GakuseiDon

Don't forget "doesn't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin".

The same as any claims in any other texts. How do you propose that people examine non-supernatural claims in religious texts?

It's got nothing to do with your beliefs, it's your constant stream of barely related questions. You employ what's called "Argument by Exhaustion", where, if you ask enough questions, the other party retires from the conversation.

There is a certain expectation that posters answer questions asked of them, but also an onus on the questioner to ensure that the questions are relevent to the topic. You seem to be a nice fellow, and I have no doubt it would be enjoyable to sit down for a chat with you in real life, but your "net etiquette" lets you down.

I enjoy a good debate, but it does take the ability to concentrate on a thread for more than 2 posts. If you could just focus on the topic, I would have no complaints. Instead, after about 2 posts, you start with your "Why doesn't God should show up tangibly and...?" and "What credible evidence for God...?" schtick. Fine on some threads, but not on nearly every damn one of them. Please, try to stay with the topic when asking your questions.

Revisit Andrew's comment, and then your questions in response (my emphasis below).

Andrew's comment:
IMHO the real problem is not whether the eyewitnesses were really eyewitnesses but whether or not this miracle was deliberately 'staged' to aid Vespasian.

Your questions:
Well, for me, the most important issues in the entire Bible are the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and the testimonies of people who interviewed eyewitnesses. Are you saying that you can make a credible case for Christianity without using the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and the testimonies of people who interviewed eyewitnesses?

You've pretty much ignored Andrew's comment on what he thought the real problem was, to return to a theme that you continually return to elsewhere. I know you don't mean to be, but IMO it comes across as rude, and you've started to drive the thread into a tangent. Everyone does this at times -- I've done it myself (ironically I'm doing it here) -- but you just seem to do it all the time. I just don't think you are aware of it.

Ray Moscow

My first reaction on reading this is to follow up with "Why?" and "Why"?

I used to have the same beliefs but gradually gave them up as I released that these propositions lacked supporting evidence, and I got tired of believing things that seemed improbable and lacked evidence.

You seem quite willing to delve into biblical criticism and follow the evidence where it takes you. I was just wondering why this seems to stop before you got to your two opening premises.

Anyway, I see that I've taken this off topic, so let's take it off line or else table it for now.

Cheers,
Ray

Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean by 'staged'? Do you mean like a Peter Popov miracle where someone pretends to be healed but has not been healed?

You said what you think the problem is, but did you offer any solutions to solving the problem? You believe that the supernatural events in the Bible are true, right? If so, do you believe that some supernatural events that are found in some other religious books, and in some secular histories, are true?

andrewcriddle

I don't pretend to know what happened, if I had to make a guess then I would suggest that Vespasian's team sought out people with conditions that the medical experts of the time believed would respond to suggestion.

Vespasian provided the suggestion and the sufferers genuinely believed themselves cured. We have no evidence one way or the other about how much long term organic improvement occurred.
I think it quite likely that some supernatural events found in non-Biblical sources are at least to some extent true.

Many are obviously false and I generally lack good criteria for saying that any specific one is genuine.

The most likely examples IMVHO would be some claims to valid predictions and knowledge of events at a distance in Ancient non-Christian sources.

I find a few of them rather convincing, although there are obviously possible alternative explanations.

Andrew Criddle