Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 12-02-2006, 06:06 PM

I vote for a 2nd Century date, if only because very few writers before Irenaeus seem to have any real knowledge of it.

That certainly isn't conclusive proof that it is 2nd Century but we also don't have any positive evidence I know of for an earlier dating.

Clivedurdle · 12-03-2006, 03:20 AM

What happens if one seriously posits a date related to Hadrian? Does it or does it not fit?

rlogan · 12-03-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Are these better examples?

Better examples than someone talking to a horse, but not at all what I asked for.

Did you give me examples of someone doing falsifiable third-party miracles of astonishing (God-level) character in the same place and time? No, you didn't.

First of all, Ben - you cut out by far the most important part of the section on Jewish Wars that you are using as an example.

At the time in the passage, the Romans are in the middle of destroying the temple and then:

Quote:

A false prophet (19) was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such his deliverance.

Did God come deliver them as promised by the false prophets?

No - the temple was utterly destroyed and they were annihilated.

So why choose this as an example of a God-man doing miracles?

Quote:

[A] Thus there was a star resembling a sword which stood over the city, and a comet that continued a whole year.

This is a God-man doing miracles?

Quote:

[B] Thus also before the rebellion of the Jews and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people had come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house that it appeared to be bright day time, which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

Where is the God-man doing miracles?

Quote:

[C] At the same festival also a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

Why are you wasting bandwidth? A cow gave birth.

Edit; oh, I see. To a lamb. Happens all the time. heh.

Quote:

[D] Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of brass and vastly heavy and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it. He then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the sign foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them.

A ghost opened a gate. God man? Donde esta Godman, Senor.

Quote:

[E] Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar], a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared. I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signs. For before sunset chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding cities.

Maybe you think you are in the ballpark because something astonishing is being alleged.

But is this a third-party miracle a God-man has performed that is falsifiable, occurring in the same place and time?

no.

Quote:

Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court], as was their custom, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying: Let us remove hence.

Nobody doing miracles here, is there.

Is there a reason why you are not responding to the question and instead giving whatever examples of "something happened" that you can find?

I'll have to read the original text in the next examples you gave. But please refrain from the strategy of just wearing the opposition down with a binary game of endless "how about this..."

It is a very specific kind of miracle allegation.

rlogan · 12-03-2006, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Augustine of Hippo, City of God 22.8:

In the same place [from context, in Hippo], too, the son of a man, Irenaeus, a tax gatherer among us, took ill and died. And while his body was lying lifeless and the last rites were being prepared, amidst the weeping and mourning of all, one of the friends who were consoling the father suggested that the body should be anointed with the oil of the same martyr [from context, Stephen]. It was done, and he revived.

Likewise Eleusinus, a man of tribunitian rank among us, laid his infant son, who had died, on the shrine of the martyr, which is in the suburb where he lived, and, after prayer, which he poured out there with many tears, he took up his child alive.

Are these better examples?

Ben.

Hi Ben.

City of God , ch 8 is the mother lode of miracles to prove Christ.

These are better examples, and had these not turned out to be in the ballpark I would have dismissed any more of your posts on this on account of worthless tedium. But again, these are worth discussing.

I want to read the whole chapter and am going to bed at the moment.

Ben C Smith · 12-03-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Hi Ben.

City of God , ch 8 is the mother lode of miracles to prove Christ.

These are better examples, and had these not turned out to be in the ballpark I would have dismissed any more of your posts on this on account of worthless tedium.

I humbly thank you for finding me worthy of your brief attention.

One little question about the Josephus series.... Are you saying that miracle claims are falsifiable when an identifiable person is doing them (and everybody in the vicinity is supposed to have seen the miracle in question), but nonfalsifiable when the miracle has no human agent (and everybody in the vicinity is supposed to have seen the miracle in question)?

Ben.

aa5874 · 12-03-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Josephus, Wars 6.5.3 §289-299:

[E] Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar], a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared. I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signs. For before sunset chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding cities.

This passage has revealed the serious credibilty problems that so-called miraculous events pose. Josephus, a believer in the supernatural, writes about an event that is vitually impossible to have occured, but because he trust his sources, apparently his sources are always reliable, he claims people, real people saw soldiers riding chariots in the clouds!

Now, if Josephus wrote about other events that appear plausible, it may be that the events were told to him by those who saw soldiers riding chariots in the clouds.

Ben C Smith · 12-03-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

First of all, Ben - you cut out by far the most important part of the section on Jewish Wars that you are using as an example.

I did not cut anything out at all. I cited section 3 of chapter 5 in its entirety. Had I cut anything out, I would have used an ellipsis.

What you quoted came from section 2 of chapter 5, immediately preceding the section that I quoted whole. The section that you quoted comes in chronological sequence as part of the events toward the end of the rebellion, while most of the section that I quoted comes out of chronological sequence as describing events that happened just before the rebellion. It is a flashback.

Quote:

At the time in the passage, the Romans are in the middle of destroying the temple and then....

Did God come deliver them as promised by the false prophets?

No - the temple was utterly destroyed and they were annihilated.

Correct. You were asking for miracle claims, and there is no miracle claim in section 2. That may be why I did not quote section 2 for you.

Quote:

So why choose this as an example of a God-man doing miracles?

Indeed. Why? You are asking for miracle claims, and there is no miracle claim in this example. Again, that may have something to do with why I did not use this example.

Quote:

But is this a third-party miracle a God-man has performed that is falsifiable, occurring in the same place and time?

I already asked this in a previous post, but why is it important that an agent be doing the miracles? Are you saying that it is okay for Josephus to allege that within living memory huge crowds witnessed half an hour of daylight at night in the temple precincts and soldiers running around the clouds, but it is not okay for Mark to allege that within living memory huge crowds witnessed a few loaves of bread become many?

I am not trying to be difficult here. This genuinely puzzles me.

Quote:

Is there a reason why you are not responding to the question and instead giving whatever examples of "something happened" that you can find?

Because I had no idea that the attribution of the miracle to a human agent was part of your criteria, nor do I yet understand why it should be.

You wrote:

Quote:

The miracles placed in the hands of Jesus are fundamentally different in a number of respects.

They are specific, falsifiable third party claims of stratospheric magnitude. Bring to me examples that satisfy all those criteria.

I tried to bring you falsifiable third party claims of stratospheric magnitude (literally stratospheric in the case of one or two of the Josephus miracles). You also wrote:

Quote:

If you are going to claim that superman came through Jerusalem, appearing before multitudes performing miracles and such - then you can't very well be saying that to people who are from Jerusalem and were alive at the time of these alleged astonishments. You need to be at least a full generation removed from the alleged events or you have nobody who can back you up and everyone else who can correctly label you a crackpot.

I tried to bring you examples of astonishments being alleged in less than a full generation. You do mention in this example the notion of a superman coming through Jerusalem performing miracles, but I had no way of knowing that the presence of a superman was one of the criteria. Does it also have to have occurred in Jerusalem, since you mention that city in this paragraph? (The Josephus series qualifies even at that, though I agree it fails the superman test.)

[QUOTE]I'll have to read the original text in the next examples you gave. But please refrain from the strategy of just wearing the opposition down with a binary game of endless "how about this..."

I assure you, I have and had no such intention.

Quote:

It is a very specific kind of miracle allegation.

It must be if it includes crowds witnessing bread and fishes multiplied but excludes crowds witnessing a heifer giving birth to a lamb, a bright light shining round the altar at night, and soldiers attacking cities in the clouds.

If you would be kind enough to list your criteria numerically (and explain at least the one about the human miracle worker), perhaps I can narrow my search down and offer you only examples that you find relevant.

Ben.

rlogan · 12-03-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I did not cut anything out at all. I cited section 3 of chapter 5 in its entirety. Had I cut anything out, I would have used an ellipsis.

Section 3 is a continuation of two - not something entirely separate from it, and section 3 indeed begins with people being misled by false prophets alleging miracles. But let's get to something very interesting I have learned about miracle stories with this very limited review.

Quote:

I already asked this in a previous post, but why is it important that an agent be doing the miracles? Are you saying that it is okay for Josephus to allege that within living memory huge crowds witnessed half an hour of daylight at night in the temple precincts and soldiers running around the clouds, but it is not okay for Mark to allege that within living memory huge crowds witnessed a few loaves of bread become many?

I am not trying to be difficult here. This genuinely puzzles me.

First of all, you changed the character of the miracle about the loafs of bread by excising Jesus from it. Not intentionally, I think, but I want to really maintain focus here. Jesus supposedly fed thousands. Twice. With nothing.

The distinction between "miracles" and "miracles performed by God-man on earth" is a fundamantal distinction.

An invisible God is impossible to falsify. It is impossible to be called for repeated experiment. There is no contrary record to point to.

All these things are true with a real person. There are many, many examples of ESP fakes, magicians, and so forth. What exposes them is the controlled experiment; the statements of those who really know them and numerous other means. But they require that you have the person in hand.

The stories you submitted to me are random collections where we really can't bring a person or thing in to test it. Nothing contrary can be brought against them. The "back to life" stories are not someone performing the miracle and are tantamount to "God saved me in the car accident and I saw the tunnel of light".

You can certainly call out the fraud when all these alleged miracles are contemporaneous. Ooopsie - too bad he's dead or he sure would show you. Well, not really - he came back to life, but he's too busy to stick around for us to prove that...

You have flatly stated to me elsewhere, Ben, that you do not believe these miracles happened. So the only question is how much time elapsed before the fabricated stories were recorded. Maybe you would care to simply put down a date.

So we do not disagree so much on the principle that "exaggerations" came after the life of the legendary person. Please do not again submit "talking to animals" kinds of contra-examples. I mean miracles.

I am doubting that they can even come in the lifetimes of the people who actually knew Jesus, if he existed (he didn't) or the people who can falsify that their daughter was supposedly brought back to life and etc.

Quote:

Because I had no idea that the attribution of the miracle to a human agent was part of your criteria, nor do I yet understand why it should be.

You've selectively quote-mined me, Ben - and it is both tedious and boring to respond to this kind of thing.

I was responding to other examples you gave in what you quote-mined. And it is clear not just from the full quote, but from all of my discussion that I am talking about miracles performed by people:

Quote:

The miracles placed in the hands of Jesus are fundamentally different in a number of respects.

They are specific, falsifiable third party claims of stratospheric magnitude. Bring to me examples that satisfy all those criteria.

and the first quote you responded to from me:

Quote:

If you are going to claim that superman came through Jerusalem,

That you do not understand I am talking about miracles performed by a person is a mystery - especially that you first responded with this:

Quote:

Many medieval saints were credited with miracles by their contemporaries and indeed by their very companions.

Tedium, Ben.

You apparently understood this before and now claim you didn't.

So maybe you are not trying to be difficult, but you sure are anyway.

Ben C Smith · 12-03-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

The stories you submitted to me are random collections where we really can't bring a person or thing in to test it. Nothing contrary can be brought against them.

I am still not altogether certain what difference-that-makes-a-difference you are seeing between a night light performed by agents unknown that everybody witnesses and a miraculous feeding performed by Jesus that everybody witnesses. (The difference is probably obvious, but I am just missing it. Sorry.)

So let us compare the feeding of the five thousand in Mark.... Let me give a purely hypothetical date (since you asked for one) of about 45 for the rise of this legend. Who can we bring in to test this miracle allegedly performed by Jesus a decade and a half earlier?

For comparison, Josephus also wrote about a decade and a half after the alleged night light miracle. Who can we bring in to test this miracle performed by agents unknown?

Ben.

BTW, my mention of medieval saints performing miracles was not intended as a premature confession that I knew you would accept only astonishments performed by human hands.

ETA: I meant to include Augustine here. Who can we bring in to test whether the daughter of Irenaeus really rose from the dead during her own funeral?

rlogan · 12-03-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

(The difference is probably obvious, but I am just missing it. Sorry.)

It is. And you are.

Quote:

So let us compare the feeding of the five thousand in Mark.... Let me give a purely hypothetical date (since you asked for one) of about 45 for the rise of this legend.

Give me your date for Mark. That simple. Not hypothetical. The date.

Since you are being so obtuse, it seems best to focus on one thing at a time.

Give me the date.

View Poll Results: When was the book called Mark likely to have been written
After the fall of the Temple in 70 CE	37	63.79%
Before the fall of the Temple	8	13.79%
Don't know	13	22.41%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2006, 06:06 PM	#31
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	I vote for a 2nd Century date, if only because very few writers before Irenaeus seem to have any real knowledge of it. That certainly isn't conclusive proof that it is 2nd Century but we also don't have any positive evidence I know of for an earlier dating.

12-03-2006, 03:20 AM	#32
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What happens if one seriously posits a date related to Hadrian? Does it or does it not fit?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.