“Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.”
And…sorry to have to break the news to orthodox Jews but…your supernatural claim of a god speaking to you from a mountain in the Sinai has no evidence to support it either. It’s just another ancient superstition.
If we are foundationalists, we cannot build our beliefs on divine revelation unless either (1) we can believe that revelation is properly basic, or (2) we build that belief in revelation on some other foundation that is basic. I can’t see how we can assume (1) without begging the question, so I think (2) is the way to go. So the basic foundation of my belief is evidence (I guess assuming our senses give us true information) and on the basis of that evidence I believe in Jesus and in God, and on that basis I believe the scriptures are inspired, but I define what I mean by that from the evidence.
This sounds reasonable. I agree that (1) would be begging the question. This does not mean that (2) is the only alternative because we should not rule out the possibility that there is no divine inspiration. I don’t think you were implying that, but rather explaining the progression of your beliefs, which makes sense.
It clearly doesn’t need any supernatural explanation, in the sense that one can believe in those things without supernatural explanation, as many scholars do. But the question (I think) is whether the supernatural explanation fits better.
Yes, that is a good question. I just think that in many other instances people rule out the supernatural with ease. After-Death Sightings of Elvis Presley might be a good example. Is it possible that a deity was pleased by Elvis’ music and brought him back to life? I suppose so. This would certainly explain why so many people saw him after his death. But, I’m not sure if this can be considered the most probable cause. Resurrections are not a common occurrence whereas illusions, hallucinations, exaggerations and mistakes are.
My thinking goes like this. Here is a man who we can believe certain things about him and his teachings are historically true. Was he telling the truth? Were his biographers telling the truth? The main barrier to belief is our natural scepticism against the supernatural. But if God exists, and if we think Jesus seems truthful, then it isn’t difficult to believe he did miracles, really was resurrected and was indeed God;s son (whatever that actually means).
The main barrier for me would be allowing myself to lower my belief standards in the case of Jesus while maintaining my standards for everything else. I cannot perform this type of inconsistency again. I was guilty of way too many double standards when I was a Christian so I am hyper sensitive to falling into that again.
Your next few paragraphs get into the arguments for God’s existence, but that could be a very long discussion. I am okay with using the phrase “If God exists, then ___” and I agree with the possibility of miracles if a creator deity exists. What I don’t see is how you get to “if we think Jesus seems truthful, then it isn’t difficult to believe he did miracles, really was resurrected and was indeed God’s son” Can you be more specific on what you think Jesus was being truthful about?
I wouldn’t suggest suddenly throwing oneself into becoming a priest or anything, that wouldn’t be honest, but I think one could reasonably start to try living a little more according to Jesus’ teachings (probably wouldn’t do anyone any harm!) and praying and asking God to confirm one’s tentative choice.
Yeah, there are definitely some good ideas in the gospels that I don’t mind applying to my life. Treat others the way you want to be treated. The love of money is the root of all evil. Be a good neighbor like the good Samaritan. Help out those in need. Etc. There are also some things in there that I don’t agree with, but that could lead to another discussion rabbit trail…
The stories the historians accept are indeed eyewitness accounts (where else would they have come from?)
Well, they may be based on some historical truth (like the story of moses), but there could be other sources of information. There could be people who make things up, or exaggerate things. Just to give one example, in the gospel of Peter, Jesus leaves the tomb and is followed by a walking, talking cross. It would be a mistake to think that this was based on an eyewitness account just because “where else could it come from?”
But what I can say is that my life since believing confirms my belief in a lower key way and is consistent with it.
To be honest with you, I’m not really sure what you mean by this. There must be something that confirms your decision for you? It can’t just be “well, I’ve had a good life”, right?
Sorry, this is getting long. Please let me know when I’m becoming a nuisance.
So, I have shown above that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Biblical scholars do not believe the messianic claims of Jesus nor do they believe that the Resurrection was a historical event. To my surprise, I have discovered that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church calls into question the “historicity” of many of the supernatural claims contained in the Gospels, claims that most conservative Protestants accept as absolute fact, such as: the virgin birth, the Davidic ancestry of Jesus, and the resurrection!
In 1995 a group of Jews sent the pope a letter asking him to clarify to them some of the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels. The pope declined to answer the questions but referred them (eventually) to a Roman Catholic theologian whose writings the Vatican had given its official seal of approval and authority to speak officially for the Church. Here are the questions the Jews asked:
1) The Gospels teach that Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. We are unclear, however, whether those appearances took place in Jerusalem or in the Galilee (or at both locales). According to our reading, the Galilean accounts seem to rule out prior Jerusalem appearances. Where did Jesus actually appear? If he appeared in Jerusalem, how should we read the Galilean accounts?
(2) We find the genealogy of Jesus provided by the Gospels confusing. Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather? (We notice that Matthew says that his grandfather was Jacob, but Luke says it was Heli). Also, we notice that Matthew declares that Jesus was separated from King David by only twenty-eight generations, but Luke’s list shows a forty-three generation separation. What does this contradiction mean?
(3) The genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to pass through Jesus’ father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin conception, then he does not share in his father’s Davidic ancestry. How is Jesus a descendent of David?
Post-Resurrectional Appearances: Galilee or Jerusalem?
In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is “free of doctrinal or moral error”), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. “It is quite obvious,” Brown writes, “that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.”[1] “Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances,” explains Brown, “the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem.”[2]
Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the simplest solution to the contradiction: “We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee.”[3] Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, “Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative.”[4] Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.
Gary: So now we can add the Roman Catholic Church to the list of “scholars” who do NOT believe in the historicity of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Shocking!
In the same essay, (Roman Catholic theologian, speaking officially for the RCC) Brown observes that “the lists of Jesus’ ancestors that they [the Gospels] give are very different, and neither one is plausible.”[5] Brown takes the surprising position that “because the early Christians confessed Jesus as Messiah, for which ‘Son of David’ was an alternative title, they historicized their faith by creating for him Davidic genealogies and by claiming that Joseph was a Davidide.”[6] In another essay, also carrying the Church’s Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Brown expands upon this proposition:
Increasingly, the purported descent from David is explained as a theologoumenon, i.e., as the historicizing of what was originally a theological statement. If I may give a simplified explanation, the process of historicizing Davidic sonship is thought to have gone somewhat in the following way: the Christian community believed that Jesus had fulfilled Israel’s hopes; prominent among those hopes was the expectation of a Messiah, and so the traditional title “Messiah” was given to Jesus; but in Jewish thought the Messiah was pictured as having Davidic descent; consequently Jesus was described as “son of David”; and eventually a Davidic genealogy was fashioned for him.[7]
Brown explains that Matthew probably created fictional genealogical links back to Abraham and David also “to appeal to the mixed constituency of his [Matthew’s] community of Jewish and Gentile Christians.”[8] As evidence that Jesus was really not a descendent of David at all, Brown points out that:
There is not the slightest indication in the accounts of the ministry of Jesus that his family was of ancestral nobility or royalty. If Jesus were a dauphin, there would have been none of the wonderment about his pretensions. He appears in the Gospels as a man of unimpressive background from an unimportant village.[9]
Brown goes even further, calling into question the reliability of large sections of the New Testament. He encourages his readers to face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke “may represent non-historical dramatizations:”[10]
Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical. Matthew’s account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the New Testament (the king and all Jerusalem upset over the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem; a star which moved from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and came to rest over a house; the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem). Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong, as is his understanding of the Jewish customs of the presentation of the child and the purification of the mother in 2:22-24. Some of these events, which are quite implausible as history, have now been understood as rewritings of Old Testament scenes or themes.[11]
Brown’s most extreme statement in this regard, appearing in the same essay, suggests that the Pope himself might reject the historicity of the resurrection altogether:
It was this interaction [of the eschatological and the historical] that Pope Paul pointed to in the same address when he spoke of the resurrection as “the unique and sensational event on which the whole of human history turns.” This is not the same, however, as saying that the resurrection itself was a historical event, even though editorial writers quoted the Pope’s speech to that effect.[12]
It is crucial to remember (a) that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church’s approbation; (b) that they were written by a scholar whose works were endorsed by the Ecole Biblique; and (c) that Ecole Biblique is the institution that we were referred to by Vatican authorities.
Brown cautions that “we should not underestimate the adverse pedagogical impact on the understanding of divine sonship if the virginal conception is denied.”[13] On the other hand, admits Brown, “The virginal conception under its creedal title of ‘virgin birth’ is not primarily a biological statement.”[14] He stresses that Christian writings about virginal conception intend to reveal spiritual insights rather that physical facts.
Because record of the virginal conception appears only in two Gospels, and there only in the infancy narratives (which Brown suspects are largely fictional), the Catholic theologian tactfully concludes that “biblical evidence leaves the question of the historicity of the virginal conception unresolved.”[15]
Brown mentions the possibility that “early Christians” might have imported a mythology about virginal conception from “pagan or [other] world religions,”[16] but never intended that that mythology be taken literally. “Virginal conception was a well-known religious symbol for divine origins,” explains Brown, citing such stories in Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Greco-Roman and ancient Egyptian theologies.[17] He proposes that early Christians “used an imagery of virginal conception whose symbolic origins were forgotten as it was disseminated among various Christian communities and recorded by evangelists.”[18]
Alternatively, Brown also considers the possibility that Christianity’s founders intended to create the impression that an actual virginal conception took place. Early Christians needed just such a myth, Brown notes, since Mary was widely known to have delivered Jesus too early: “Unfortunately, the historical alternative to the virginal conception has not been a conception in wedlock; it has been illegitimacy.”[19] Brown writes that:
Some sophisticated Christians could live with the alternative of illegitimacy; they would see this as the ultimate stage in Jesus’ emptying himself and taking on the form of a servant, and would insist, quite rightly, that an irregular begetting involves no sin by Jesus himself. But illegitimacy would destroy the images of sanctity and purity with which Matthew and Luke surround Jesus’ origins and would negate the theology that Jesus came from the pious Anawim of Israel. For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery.[20]
In summary, Brown leans towards a less miraculous explanation of Jesus’ early birth.
We have wittled the “majority scholarly opinion” regarding the reliability and historicity of the Gospels down to evangelicals and orthodox Lutherans! Jewish scholars, Roman Catholic scholars, and liberal Protestant scholars all say the NT supernatural claims should be viewed as fiction, or at best, “spiritual truths, not to be taken literally”.
How much longer will UnkleE continue his ruse that the supernatural claims of the Gospels, in particular, the Resurrection, are supported by the majority of scholars?
“Sorry, this is getting long. Please let me know when I’m becoming a nuisance.”
Hi Dave, I’m not worrying about length – I’m sure I total more words than you! And I’m enjoying the opportunity to simply discuss and share ideas.
“we should not rule out the possibility that there is no divine inspiration. I don’t think you were implying that, but rather explaining the progression of your beliefs, which makes sense.”
Yes, exactly.
“After-Death Sightings of Elvis Presley might be a good example. Is it possible that a deity was pleased by Elvis’ music and brought him back to life? I suppose so. This would certainly explain why so many people saw him after his death. But, I’m not sure if this can be considered the most probable cause. Resurrections are not a common occurrence whereas illusions, hallucinations, exaggerations and mistakes are.”
I think all these things need to be considered. But there are a number of factors that are unique with Jesus, compared to (say) Elvis (or anyone else):
* Jesus is amenable to historical analysis of evidence, and has been so analysed by many, many people, unlike Elvis et al;
* Jesus was known as a miracle worker, perhaps the only one of his kind (there were other ancient miracle workers, but I have never seen any who apparently did as many AND whose claims are treated seriously by historians);
* Jesus’ sayings and actions can plausibly be interpreted as claiming to be God’s special representative on earth, aka “son of God”, whereas I can’t think of anyone else who fits that bill;
* I don’t know any other serious and historically examinable claims for resurrection, and Antony Flew said the resurrection is the best attested miracle claim in history;
* those who see Elvis (or anyone else) didn’t go on against great odds (e.g vehement persecution) to establish a religion that includes a third of the world’s population;
*Jesus’ teachings, while not unique, are sufficiently new and admirable that he is recognised as one of a select few “great moral teachers”.
All these factors make Jesus unique and incomparable to anyone else.
“The main barrier for me would be allowing myself to lower my belief standards in the case of Jesus while maintaining my standards for everything else. I cannot perform this type of inconsistency again. I was guilty of way too many double standards when I was a Christian so I am hyper sensitive to falling into that again.”
I wouldn’t suggest you compromise in that way. I’d just suggest doing the same as you’d do in other parts of life – go with whatever is the most probable in your judgment.
“Can you be more specific on what you think Jesus was being truthful about?”
He is recorded as making many interesting statements and claims. Scholars don’t all endorse all of these as being genuine of course, but there are a good lot that most endorse. A good case can be made just from these that Jesus really did make claims to be the special messenger from God, the Messiah or the unique son of God (these are not all the same thing). I have summarised the case in Jesus – son of God? So if we judge him to be telling the truth, then we have answered a few important questions about God and truth.
Some people argue that he could only have made these claims if he was genuine or mad, and thus he was genuine. I don’t use that argument so much, but just suggest each person decide for themselves whether those claims and the whole person are believable.
“Well, they may be based on some historical truth (like the story of moses), but there could be other sources of information. There could be people who make things up, or exaggerate things. Just to give one example, in the gospel of Peter, Jesus leaves the tomb and is followed by a walking, talking cross. It would be a mistake to think that this was based on an eyewitness account just because “where else could it come from?””
This is why I always start with the historians. No historian I have ever read thinks the talking cross was historical, but they do think the incidents and sayings I am talking about are (because I have selected them from among the ones generally accepted).
“To be honest with you, I’m not really sure what you mean by this. There must be something that confirms your decision for you? It can’t just be “well, I’ve had a good life”, right?”
Well, yes, but more than that. We pray together every day for each other and our kids and friends and the things we are involved in. I don’t think I’ve ever had the feeling that I was talking to thin air, and I’ve many times had the feeling that God is indeed listening and answering. Lots of “coincidences” and choices that turned out well in hindsight, and a few more definite things like being warned a couple of times about impending road accidents – I’ve told one story here. I don’t claim too much for all this, but I do say it is consistent with my belief and tends to confirm it.
It is also fair to say that some of the arguments for God and Jesus have gotten stronger in my lifetime. 50 years ago the big bang was only one of three hypotheses about the universe, and the only one that suggested creation, but now it’s well established. There was no fine-tuning argument back then. Jesus studies were more sceptical than they are now. Science has established that religion does good for people, not harm. In these and many other ways, it seems to me the evidence for christianity is stronger than it was back then, although I suppose it is fair to say that the emotional challenge of non-belief is more vehement now.
So while I have faced a lot of challenges in thinking through and re-examining my faith, like the Moses stuff we were discussing earlier, and the pain and suffering in the world, the overall evidence and my life experience makes me more confident now than I might have expected back then. Thanks.
Here is a man who we can believe certain things about him and his teachings are historically true.
This is the ultimate Get Out Of Jail Card for all believers; Placing trust in a known spurious text then allowing theologians and supposed experts to dictate the terms of that belief, thus removing the need for critical thought.
Many people do not even read the bible themselves, relying on interpretation from their minister or similar as outlined above.
Acceptance is the key.
Thus, once this takes place, any argument can be contrived to arrive at a presuppositional worldview based on the emotional needs of the believer.
Unklee is proving this phenomenon with every common and while Dave is doing a sterling job, demonstrating exactly why he no longer believes – his refusal to lower his standards of critical thinking – unklee demonstrates how religion nullifies true critical thought.
There comes a point where simply being uninformed – as I suspect most deconvertees were prior to their deconversion – to being willfully ignorant.
There may even be a third option steadfastly believing even in possession of the facts.
This appears to be an extreme version of fundamentalism.
Following this interaction is like watching Coco the gorilla’s handler try to teach basic common sense. I suspect Coco would catch on sooner.
Dave will prove his point – I guarantee it ( after all, he lie Nate and many others have: Been there, was a sinner, got the T shirt recognised the Bullshit) and Unklee will thank him politely and bow out with some sort of agree-to-disagree line with a passing shot about if Dave will not accept expert opinion then there is nothing he can do.
UnkleE, we are glad you are alive. It is terribly saddening to know, however, that your god decided to save you but not the starving children under 5 who die every 3 to 5 seconds. Sometimes belief in Jesus/God really does come across as a bit narcissistic when I hear stories like this “The Day God Saved Me”, although I’m not suggesting you are. It just comes across “me”, “me”, “me” — “I’m so special god heard my prayer and saved me.”
I read your story — I know a lady from South Carolina — where I used to live until recently who had the very same experience. She doesn’t believe in your god. She’s Wiccan. Wicca has no high authority, no single leader, no prophet and no Bible to dictate its laws and beliefs.
“You may think you decided to read this story — but in fact, your brain made the decision long before you knew about it.
In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people’s decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.”
It applies to our senses detecting and our brain noticing potential dangers in our environment before we are consciously aware of them. Our senses take in a lot of data from the environment that you are not aware of — from the eyes alone, they takes in 10 million bits per second.
Don’t you think you are being a wee bit assuming — wishing thinking?
UnkleE — you did add a “….perhaps” at the end of your title, but based on your story, you did not seem doubtful that you were specifically selected over the thousands upon thousands of children who died a horrible death that very same day.
I have come to believe that not only is it not my responsibility to convince anyone of anything – I actually CANNOT do so. Working to that end just lumps me in the camp that has an agenda for relationships (the very thing that made me so angry at evangelicals who only make friends of “unbelievers” in order to convert them).
Great comment, Judah. This is where I need to be – I am already realizing that I cannot convince anyone. And, I certainly don’t want to be the guy who always has a hidden agenda. Just loving is what I really can do (well, not well, but I can try :))
i dont think it’s my responsibility to convince anyone of anything… unless we’re talking about my children, then there are certain things that i need to try to convince them of… and then i guess that’s true for all my loved ones, depending on the topic.
But because this topic weighs heavily on me, and because i enjoy discussing it, and because i recall that similar discussions have helped me in the past, i engage in such discussions now.
not because i feel like I have to convince everyone to see it my way – not at all.
I mean, i see what you all are saying, but in some ways it seems like an excuse to remove yourself from a topic that is often uncomfortable – which is fine, but needn’t be attributed to everyone.
it could even be viewed as trying to convince others that they shouldn’t try to convince others.
Ark, “Unklee will thank him politely and bow out with some sort of agree-to-disagree line with a passing shot about if Dave will not accept expert opinion then there is nothing he can do.”
And whether unkleE verbalizes it here (he has in the past to others) he will think that Dave was never a real Christian to begin with .
So if we judge him to be telling the truth, then we have answered a few important questions about God and truth.
Actually this is incorrect.
What you should be saying is if we judge the gospel writer – whoever this was – as having recorded the words of the person/s who passed on the oral tradition as trustworthy and likely having a a eidetic memory, and assuming that the gospel writer copied this down correctly.
Bearing in mind how much of the gospels experts know are spurious, why should we consider the person who wrote this down actually recorded anything faithfully or was likely to be telling the truth?
After reading this morning’s comments, I am even more convinced of the need to remove any hint of respectability for the belief in the supernatural. Supernaturalists, such as Unk, spin the most elaborate webs of pseudo-rational sounding arguments, but in the end, they are trying to convince us that virgins have babies and rotting corpses eat broiled fish lunches.
It’s silly nonsense. And that is what we should tell them…over and over again.
N: Good morning, Supernaturalist! What shall we discuss today?
S: I would like to talk about Jesus, my Lord and Savior.
N: Ah, yes. Your 2,000 years-dead, invisible friend, Jesus. Alright. Go ahead. What did your invisible friend Jesus tell you today?
S: Well, when I was on my knees this morning praying to Jesus, he told me that I should warn you, Naturalist, that if you do not submit to him and believe in him as your Eternal Slave Master, that when you die, he is going to be forced by his perfect holy righteousness, to cast you into a pit of fire to burn for all eternity.
N: Ok, Supernaturalist. We certainly have a lot to chew on there, don’t we? Let’s start at the end of your statement and go backwards: You realize, Supernaturalist, that when anything is placed into fire it burns up rather quickly. So even if it is true that I will be cast into a pit of fire by your invisible friend Jesus, I will not burn for all eternity. I would burn up in a matter of minutes.
S: It’s magic fire.
N: No, Supernaturalist, we have gone over this before. There is no such thing as magic fire. Fire has defined properties. Magic fire is imaginary. It isn’t real. This is simply a story. You should not believe it as fact. It is an irrational belief.
S: But Jesus tells me in my heart that it is true!
N: Have you heard your invisible friend’s voice tell you this? If so, we are going to have to up the dose of your medication.
S: No, I don’t hear audible voices, Naturalist, but I feel him speak to me, I sense him speak to me, and Jesus says so in the Bible, the inerrant Holy Word of God.
N: How do you know, Supernaturalist, that the inaudible voice that you feel and sense is that of your imaginary friend, Jesus, and not your own voice, speaking to yourself?
S: Well, I guess I can’t prove that it is Jesus’ voice, but the voice that I feel and sense tells me things that are consistent with the Bible and the Bible can’t be wrong, therefore the voice in my head must be Jesus.
N: And how do you know that the Bible is true, Supernaturalist? After all, it was written approximately 2,000 years ago, by mostly anonymous writers. How can we confirm that the Bible is telling us real historical facts and teaching us inerrant truths if we know nothing about the people who wrote it?
S: The voice in my head says I should believe it.
N: Hmmm. I think we are going to have to increase the dose of your medication, Supernaturalist. Ok, well, tell me a little more about your invisible friend, Jesus.
S: He is so wonderful! He was born of a virgin, you know.
N: A what? Supernaturalist, virgins cannot have babies. Didn’t your father have the “birds and the bees” conversation with you? Babies must have a mother and a father.
S: Jesus did have a father!
N: You just said he was born of a virgin. Which is it, Supernaturalist?
S: Jesus’ father was the Holy Ghost!
N: A ghost? Supernaturalist, did this ghost have a penis and testicles that produce human sperm, because if not, there is no way possible that a ghost fathered a child.
S: No, the Holy Ghost doesn’t have a body. It was **magic** sperm.
N: Magic sperm. Oh, my.
N: Ok, Supernaturalist, we’ve run out of time for today. I think we should start meeting twice weekly from now on. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
I’m not worrying about length – I’m sure I total more words than you! And I’m enjoying the opportunity to simply discuss and share ideas.
Thanks, glad to hear it.
I think all these things need to be considered. But there are a number of factors that are unique with Jesus, compared to (say) Elvis (or anyone else): Jesus is amenable to historical analysis of evidence, and has been so analysed by many, many people, unlike Elvis et al;
I don’t think the amount of research done after the fact has any bearing on whether or not the accounts were based on an actual miracle or not. I can explain this better if needed, but otherwise I’m dismissing this one.
Jesus was known as a miracle worker, perhaps the only one of his kind (there were other ancient miracle workers, but I have never seen any who apparently did as many AND whose claims are treated seriously by historians.
Earlier it was said that historians think that Jesus was known as a faith healer. You have not demonstrated that historians actually think the miracles themselves are historical. I agree there were many other ancient miracle workers and they are even common still today (Benny Hinn comes to mind). How does the number of miracle claims improve the odds of an actual miracle occurring? Do you believe in Virgin Mary sightings?
I don’t know any other serious and historically examinable claims for resurrection, and Antony Flew said the resurrection is the best attested miracle claim in history;
I think Flew made an overstatement. The evidence is that Jesus’ followers believed they saw him after he died. This is comparable to Elvis’ fans who believed they saw him after he died. We still need to ask ourselves what is the most probable explanation. As I said earlier, “Resurrections are not a common occurrence whereas illusions, hallucinations, exaggerations and mistakes are.”
those who see Elvis (or anyone else) didn’t go on against great odds (e.g vehement persecution) to establish a religion that includes a third of the world’s population;
I think the current population size of Christianity can be attributed to natural causes. What is more interesting to me are the facts that are closest to the time of the claimed miracles. The persecution claims are highly contested with some saying there was hardly any (Candida Moss). I probably fall somewhere in the middle, believing that there were some efforts by the Jews to persecute early followers of “the way”. Is there evidence to show that they died because of their belief in the resurrection / miracles? This would be important to show.
Jesus’ teachings, while not unique, are sufficiently new and admirable that he is recognised as one of a select few “great moral teachers”.
I think he probably had some great things to say, but I’m not sure this affects the probability of the miracle claims. The real people in question are the people who passed down the stories for 40 years and the anonymous authors who wrote the gospels.
Jesus’ sayings and actions can plausibly be interpreted as claiming to be God’s special representative on earth, aka “son of God”, whereas I can’t think of anyone else who fits that bill.
He is recorded as making many interesting statements and claims. Scholars don’t all endorse all of these as being genuine of course, but there are a good lot that most endorse. A good case can be made just from these that Jesus really did make claims to be the special messenger from God, the Messiah or the unique son of God (these are not all the same thing). I have summarised the case in Jesus – son of God?
I think this is an interesting point and one that I’d like to discuss in more detail. First, I’d like to read the page you linked to, but the link is not working. Can you try again?
This is why I always start with the historians. No historian I have ever read thinks the talking cross was historical, but they do think the incidents and sayings I am talking about are (because I have selected them from among the ones generally accepted).
Okay, but the historians are not saying that miracles actually occurred. I was basically pointing out that there are other sources of information (exaggerations, illusions, tall tales, etc) which need to be considered. If we had proof that the disciples John and Matthew wrote their gospels it would be a different category of evidence, but this is not the case. So I think it is fair to say that we don’t have any first hand testimony / direct eyewitness accounts of the resurrection or the miracles said to be performed by Jesus.
“About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,[a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.) 34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.”
Gary: That’s right. A group of first century Jews see and hear Moses and Elijah, the two greatest Jews in all of history, talking to Jesus, but decide to keep it quite…at least for awhile. Possible, but highly unlikely. But what is really odd is that John, one of the disciples allegedly present at this meeting with two dead men, REALLY keeps this story quite. John never says a word about this event in his gospel! Are we really to believe that any Jew would see Moses and Elijah with their own eyes and not think it important enough to mention in their own written story about the life of Jesus??
How much proof do Christians need to realize that most of this ancient tale is fiction?
Finding Truth 
“Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.”
And…sorry to have to break the news to orthodox Jews but…your supernatural claim of a god speaking to you from a mountain in the Sinai has no evidence to support it either. It’s just another ancient superstition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi UnkleE,
This sounds reasonable. I agree that (1) would be begging the question. This does not mean that (2) is the only alternative because we should not rule out the possibility that there is no divine inspiration. I don’t think you were implying that, but rather explaining the progression of your beliefs, which makes sense.
Yes, that is a good question. I just think that in many other instances people rule out the supernatural with ease. After-Death Sightings of Elvis Presley might be a good example. Is it possible that a deity was pleased by Elvis’ music and brought him back to life? I suppose so. This would certainly explain why so many people saw him after his death. But, I’m not sure if this can be considered the most probable cause. Resurrections are not a common occurrence whereas illusions, hallucinations, exaggerations and mistakes are.
The main barrier for me would be allowing myself to lower my belief standards in the case of Jesus while maintaining my standards for everything else. I cannot perform this type of inconsistency again. I was guilty of way too many double standards when I was a Christian so I am hyper sensitive to falling into that again.
Your next few paragraphs get into the arguments for God’s existence, but that could be a very long discussion. I am okay with using the phrase “If God exists, then ___” and I agree with the possibility of miracles if a creator deity exists. What I don’t see is how you get to “if we think Jesus seems truthful, then it isn’t difficult to believe he did miracles, really was resurrected and was indeed God’s son” Can you be more specific on what you think Jesus was being truthful about?
Yeah, there are definitely some good ideas in the gospels that I don’t mind applying to my life. Treat others the way you want to be treated. The love of money is the root of all evil. Be a good neighbor like the good Samaritan. Help out those in need. Etc. There are also some things in there that I don’t agree with, but that could lead to another discussion rabbit trail…
Well, they may be based on some historical truth (like the story of moses), but there could be other sources of information. There could be people who make things up, or exaggerate things. Just to give one example, in the gospel of Peter, Jesus leaves the tomb and is followed by a walking, talking cross. It would be a mistake to think that this was based on an eyewitness account just because “where else could it come from?”
To be honest with you, I’m not really sure what you mean by this. There must be something that confirms your decision for you? It can’t just be “well, I’ve had a good life”, right?
Sorry, this is getting long. Please let me know when I’m becoming a nuisance.
LikeLike
So, I have shown above that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Biblical scholars do not believe the messianic claims of Jesus nor do they believe that the Resurrection was a historical event. To my surprise, I have discovered that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church calls into question the “historicity” of many of the supernatural claims contained in the Gospels, claims that most conservative Protestants accept as absolute fact, such as: the virgin birth, the Davidic ancestry of Jesus, and the resurrection!
In 1995 a group of Jews sent the pope a letter asking him to clarify to them some of the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels. The pope declined to answer the questions but referred them (eventually) to a Roman Catholic theologian whose writings the Vatican had given its official seal of approval and authority to speak officially for the Church. Here are the questions the Jews asked:
1) The Gospels teach that Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. We are unclear, however, whether those appearances took place in Jerusalem or in the Galilee (or at both locales). According to our reading, the Galilean accounts seem to rule out prior Jerusalem appearances. Where did Jesus actually appear? If he appeared in Jerusalem, how should we read the Galilean accounts?
(2) We find the genealogy of Jesus provided by the Gospels confusing. Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather? (We notice that Matthew says that his grandfather was Jacob, but Luke says it was Heli). Also, we notice that Matthew declares that Jesus was separated from King David by only twenty-eight generations, but Luke’s list shows a forty-three generation separation. What does this contradiction mean?
(3) The genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to pass through Jesus’ father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin conception, then he does not share in his father’s Davidic ancestry. How is Jesus a descendent of David?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Post-Resurrectional Appearances: Galilee or Jerusalem?
In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is “free of doctrinal or moral error”), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. “It is quite obvious,” Brown writes, “that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.”[1] “Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances,” explains Brown, “the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem.”[2]
Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the simplest solution to the contradiction: “We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee.”[3] Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, “Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative.”[4] Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.
Gary: So now we can add the Roman Catholic Church to the list of “scholars” who do NOT believe in the historicity of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Shocking!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Genealogical Contradictions
In the same essay, (Roman Catholic theologian, speaking officially for the RCC) Brown observes that “the lists of Jesus’ ancestors that they [the Gospels] give are very different, and neither one is plausible.”[5] Brown takes the surprising position that “because the early Christians confessed Jesus as Messiah, for which ‘Son of David’ was an alternative title, they historicized their faith by creating for him Davidic genealogies and by claiming that Joseph was a Davidide.”[6] In another essay, also carrying the Church’s Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Brown expands upon this proposition:
Increasingly, the purported descent from David is explained as a theologoumenon, i.e., as the historicizing of what was originally a theological statement. If I may give a simplified explanation, the process of historicizing Davidic sonship is thought to have gone somewhat in the following way: the Christian community believed that Jesus had fulfilled Israel’s hopes; prominent among those hopes was the expectation of a Messiah, and so the traditional title “Messiah” was given to Jesus; but in Jewish thought the Messiah was pictured as having Davidic descent; consequently Jesus was described as “son of David”; and eventually a Davidic genealogy was fashioned for him.[7]
Brown explains that Matthew probably created fictional genealogical links back to Abraham and David also “to appeal to the mixed constituency of his [Matthew’s] community of Jewish and Gentile Christians.”[8] As evidence that Jesus was really not a descendent of David at all, Brown points out that:
There is not the slightest indication in the accounts of the ministry of Jesus that his family was of ancestral nobility or royalty. If Jesus were a dauphin, there would have been none of the wonderment about his pretensions. He appears in the Gospels as a man of unimpressive background from an unimportant village.[9]
Brown goes even further, calling into question the reliability of large sections of the New Testament. He encourages his readers to face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke “may represent non-historical dramatizations:”[10]
Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical. Matthew’s account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the New Testament (the king and all Jerusalem upset over the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem; a star which moved from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and came to rest over a house; the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem). Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong, as is his understanding of the Jewish customs of the presentation of the child and the purification of the mother in 2:22-24. Some of these events, which are quite implausible as history, have now been understood as rewritings of Old Testament scenes or themes.[11]
Brown’s most extreme statement in this regard, appearing in the same essay, suggests that the Pope himself might reject the historicity of the resurrection altogether:
It was this interaction [of the eschatological and the historical] that Pope Paul pointed to in the same address when he spoke of the resurrection as “the unique and sensational event on which the whole of human history turns.” This is not the same, however, as saying that the resurrection itself was a historical event, even though editorial writers quoted the Pope’s speech to that effect.[12]
It is crucial to remember (a) that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church’s approbation; (b) that they were written by a scholar whose works were endorsed by the Ecole Biblique; and (c) that Ecole Biblique is the institution that we were referred to by Vatican authorities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Virgin Birth
Brown cautions that “we should not underestimate the adverse pedagogical impact on the understanding of divine sonship if the virginal conception is denied.”[13] On the other hand, admits Brown, “The virginal conception under its creedal title of ‘virgin birth’ is not primarily a biological statement.”[14] He stresses that Christian writings about virginal conception intend to reveal spiritual insights rather that physical facts.
Because record of the virginal conception appears only in two Gospels, and there only in the infancy narratives (which Brown suspects are largely fictional), the Catholic theologian tactfully concludes that “biblical evidence leaves the question of the historicity of the virginal conception unresolved.”[15]
Brown mentions the possibility that “early Christians” might have imported a mythology about virginal conception from “pagan or [other] world religions,”[16] but never intended that that mythology be taken literally. “Virginal conception was a well-known religious symbol for divine origins,” explains Brown, citing such stories in Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Greco-Roman and ancient Egyptian theologies.[17] He proposes that early Christians “used an imagery of virginal conception whose symbolic origins were forgotten as it was disseminated among various Christian communities and recorded by evangelists.”[18]
Alternatively, Brown also considers the possibility that Christianity’s founders intended to create the impression that an actual virginal conception took place. Early Christians needed just such a myth, Brown notes, since Mary was widely known to have delivered Jesus too early: “Unfortunately, the historical alternative to the virginal conception has not been a conception in wedlock; it has been illegitimacy.”[19] Brown writes that:
Some sophisticated Christians could live with the alternative of illegitimacy; they would see this as the ultimate stage in Jesus’ emptying himself and taking on the form of a servant, and would insist, quite rightly, that an irregular begetting involves no sin by Jesus himself. But illegitimacy would destroy the images of sanctity and purity with which Matthew and Luke surround Jesus’ origins and would negate the theology that Jesus came from the pious Anawim of Israel. For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery.[20]
In summary, Brown leans towards a less miraculous explanation of Jesus’ early birth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My, my, my!
We have wittled the “majority scholarly opinion” regarding the reliability and historicity of the Gospels down to evangelicals and orthodox Lutherans! Jewish scholars, Roman Catholic scholars, and liberal Protestant scholars all say the NT supernatural claims should be viewed as fiction, or at best, “spiritual truths, not to be taken literally”.
How much longer will UnkleE continue his ruse that the supernatural claims of the Gospels, in particular, the Resurrection, are supported by the majority of scholars?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Above excerpts taken from this Jewish article:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Sorry, this is getting long. Please let me know when I’m becoming a nuisance.”
Hi Dave, I’m not worrying about length – I’m sure I total more words than you! And I’m enjoying the opportunity to simply discuss and share ideas.
“we should not rule out the possibility that there is no divine inspiration. I don’t think you were implying that, but rather explaining the progression of your beliefs, which makes sense.”
Yes, exactly.
“After-Death Sightings of Elvis Presley might be a good example. Is it possible that a deity was pleased by Elvis’ music and brought him back to life? I suppose so. This would certainly explain why so many people saw him after his death. But, I’m not sure if this can be considered the most probable cause. Resurrections are not a common occurrence whereas illusions, hallucinations, exaggerations and mistakes are.”
I think all these things need to be considered. But there are a number of factors that are unique with Jesus, compared to (say) Elvis (or anyone else):
* Jesus is amenable to historical analysis of evidence, and has been so analysed by many, many people, unlike Elvis et al;
* Jesus was known as a miracle worker, perhaps the only one of his kind (there were other ancient miracle workers, but I have never seen any who apparently did as many AND whose claims are treated seriously by historians);
* Jesus’ sayings and actions can plausibly be interpreted as claiming to be God’s special representative on earth, aka “son of God”, whereas I can’t think of anyone else who fits that bill;
* I don’t know any other serious and historically examinable claims for resurrection, and Antony Flew said the resurrection is the best attested miracle claim in history;
* those who see Elvis (or anyone else) didn’t go on against great odds (e.g vehement persecution) to establish a religion that includes a third of the world’s population;
*Jesus’ teachings, while not unique, are sufficiently new and admirable that he is recognised as one of a select few “great moral teachers”.
All these factors make Jesus unique and incomparable to anyone else.
“The main barrier for me would be allowing myself to lower my belief standards in the case of Jesus while maintaining my standards for everything else. I cannot perform this type of inconsistency again. I was guilty of way too many double standards when I was a Christian so I am hyper sensitive to falling into that again.”
I wouldn’t suggest you compromise in that way. I’d just suggest doing the same as you’d do in other parts of life – go with whatever is the most probable in your judgment.
“Can you be more specific on what you think Jesus was being truthful about?”
He is recorded as making many interesting statements and claims. Scholars don’t all endorse all of these as being genuine of course, but there are a good lot that most endorse. A good case can be made just from these that Jesus really did make claims to be the special messenger from God, the Messiah or the unique son of God (these are not all the same thing). I have summarised the case in Jesus – son of God? So if we judge him to be telling the truth, then we have answered a few important questions about God and truth.
Some people argue that he could only have made these claims if he was genuine or mad, and thus he was genuine. I don’t use that argument so much, but just suggest each person decide for themselves whether those claims and the whole person are believable.
“Well, they may be based on some historical truth (like the story of moses), but there could be other sources of information. There could be people who make things up, or exaggerate things. Just to give one example, in the gospel of Peter, Jesus leaves the tomb and is followed by a walking, talking cross. It would be a mistake to think that this was based on an eyewitness account just because “where else could it come from?””
This is why I always start with the historians. No historian I have ever read thinks the talking cross was historical, but they do think the incidents and sayings I am talking about are (because I have selected them from among the ones generally accepted).
“To be honest with you, I’m not really sure what you mean by this. There must be something that confirms your decision for you? It can’t just be “well, I’ve had a good life”, right?”
Well, yes, but more than that. We pray together every day for each other and our kids and friends and the things we are involved in. I don’t think I’ve ever had the feeling that I was talking to thin air, and I’ve many times had the feeling that God is indeed listening and answering. Lots of “coincidences” and choices that turned out well in hindsight, and a few more definite things like being warned a couple of times about impending road accidents – I’ve told one story here. I don’t claim too much for all this, but I do say it is consistent with my belief and tends to confirm it.
It is also fair to say that some of the arguments for God and Jesus have gotten stronger in my lifetime. 50 years ago the big bang was only one of three hypotheses about the universe, and the only one that suggested creation, but now it’s well established. There was no fine-tuning argument back then. Jesus studies were more sceptical than they are now. Science has established that religion does good for people, not harm. In these and many other ways, it seems to me the evidence for christianity is stronger than it was back then, although I suppose it is fair to say that the emotional challenge of non-belief is more vehement now.
So while I have faced a lot of challenges in thinking through and re-examining my faith, like the Moses stuff we were discussing earlier, and the pain and suffering in the world, the overall evidence and my life experience makes me more confident now than I might have expected back then. Thanks.
LikeLike
Unklee said:
This is the ultimate Get Out Of Jail Card for all believers; Placing trust in a known spurious text then allowing theologians and supposed experts to dictate the terms of that belief, thus removing the need for critical thought.
Many people do not even read the bible themselves, relying on interpretation from their minister or similar as outlined above.
Acceptance is the key.
Thus, once this takes place, any argument can be contrived to arrive at a presuppositional worldview based on the emotional needs of the believer.
Unklee is proving this phenomenon with every common and while Dave is doing a sterling job, demonstrating exactly why he no longer believes – his refusal to lower his standards of critical thinking – unklee demonstrates how religion nullifies true critical thought.
There comes a point where simply being uninformed – as I suspect most deconvertees were prior to their deconversion – to being willfully ignorant.
There may even be a third option steadfastly believing even in possession of the facts.
This appears to be an extreme version of fundamentalism.
Following this interaction is like watching Coco the gorilla’s handler try to teach basic common sense. I suspect Coco would catch on sooner.
Dave will prove his point – I guarantee it ( after all, he lie Nate and many others have: Been there, was a sinner, got the T shirt recognised the Bullshit) and Unklee will thank him politely and bow out with some sort of agree-to-disagree line with a passing shot about if Dave will not accept expert opinion then there is nothing he can do.
LikeLiked by 3 people
oh, jeezzuuusss,
LikeLiked by 3 people
UnkleE, we are glad you are alive. It is terribly saddening to know, however, that your god decided to save you but not the starving children under 5 who die every 3 to 5 seconds. Sometimes belief in Jesus/God really does come across as a bit narcissistic when I hear stories like this “The Day God Saved Me”, although I’m not suggesting you are. It just comes across “me”, “me”, “me” — “I’m so special god heard my prayer and saved me.”
I read your story — I know a lady from South Carolina — where I used to live until recently who had the very same experience. She doesn’t believe in your god. She’s Wiccan. Wicca has no high authority, no single leader, no prophet and no Bible to dictate its laws and beliefs.
And then there’s this :
It applies to our senses detecting and our brain noticing potential dangers in our environment before we are consciously aware of them. Our senses take in a lot of data from the environment that you are not aware of — from the eyes alone, they takes in 10 million bits per second.
Don’t you think you are being a wee bit assuming — wishing thinking?
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE — you did add a “….perhaps” at the end of your title, but based on your story, you did not seem doubtful that you were specifically selected over the thousands upon thousands of children who died a horrible death that very same day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
life’s not fair 🙂
LikeLike
Great comment, Judah. This is where I need to be – I am already realizing that I cannot convince anyone. And, I certainly don’t want to be the guy who always has a hidden agenda. Just loving is what I really can do (well, not well, but I can try :))
LikeLike
@Josh
Why on earth would you want to convince anyone there is veracity in lies?
LikeLiked by 1 person
i dont think it’s my responsibility to convince anyone of anything… unless we’re talking about my children, then there are certain things that i need to try to convince them of… and then i guess that’s true for all my loved ones, depending on the topic.
But because this topic weighs heavily on me, and because i enjoy discussing it, and because i recall that similar discussions have helped me in the past, i engage in such discussions now.
not because i feel like I have to convince everyone to see it my way – not at all.
I mean, i see what you all are saying, but in some ways it seems like an excuse to remove yourself from a topic that is often uncomfortable – which is fine, but needn’t be attributed to everyone.
it could even be viewed as trying to convince others that they shouldn’t try to convince others.
LikeLike
Ark, “Unklee will thank him politely and bow out with some sort of agree-to-disagree line with a passing shot about if Dave will not accept expert opinion then there is nothing he can do.”
And whether unkleE verbalizes it here (he has in the past to others) he will think that Dave was never a real Christian to begin with .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually this is incorrect.
What you should be saying is if we judge the gospel writer – whoever this was – as having recorded the words of the person/s who passed on the oral tradition as trustworthy and likely having a a eidetic memory, and assuming that the gospel writer copied this down correctly.
Bearing in mind how much of the gospels experts know are spurious, why should we consider the person who wrote this down actually recorded anything faithfully or was likely to be telling the truth?
LikeLiked by 2 people
After reading this morning’s comments, I am even more convinced of the need to remove any hint of respectability for the belief in the supernatural. Supernaturalists, such as Unk, spin the most elaborate webs of pseudo-rational sounding arguments, but in the end, they are trying to convince us that virgins have babies and rotting corpses eat broiled fish lunches.
It’s silly nonsense. And that is what we should tell them…over and over again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
yeah, Gary!
LikeLike
@Ken
You really think so? Then I wonder how he views Nate? The same?
LikeLike
S: Good morning, Naturalist.
N: Good morning, Supernaturalist! What shall we discuss today?
S: I would like to talk about Jesus, my Lord and Savior.
N: Ah, yes. Your 2,000 years-dead, invisible friend, Jesus. Alright. Go ahead. What did your invisible friend Jesus tell you today?
S: Well, when I was on my knees this morning praying to Jesus, he told me that I should warn you, Naturalist, that if you do not submit to him and believe in him as your Eternal Slave Master, that when you die, he is going to be forced by his perfect holy righteousness, to cast you into a pit of fire to burn for all eternity.
N: Ok, Supernaturalist. We certainly have a lot to chew on there, don’t we? Let’s start at the end of your statement and go backwards: You realize, Supernaturalist, that when anything is placed into fire it burns up rather quickly. So even if it is true that I will be cast into a pit of fire by your invisible friend Jesus, I will not burn for all eternity. I would burn up in a matter of minutes.
S: It’s magic fire.
N: No, Supernaturalist, we have gone over this before. There is no such thing as magic fire. Fire has defined properties. Magic fire is imaginary. It isn’t real. This is simply a story. You should not believe it as fact. It is an irrational belief.
S: But Jesus tells me in my heart that it is true!
N: Have you heard your invisible friend’s voice tell you this? If so, we are going to have to up the dose of your medication.
S: No, I don’t hear audible voices, Naturalist, but I feel him speak to me, I sense him speak to me, and Jesus says so in the Bible, the inerrant Holy Word of God.
N: How do you know, Supernaturalist, that the inaudible voice that you feel and sense is that of your imaginary friend, Jesus, and not your own voice, speaking to yourself?
S: Well, I guess I can’t prove that it is Jesus’ voice, but the voice that I feel and sense tells me things that are consistent with the Bible and the Bible can’t be wrong, therefore the voice in my head must be Jesus.
N: And how do you know that the Bible is true, Supernaturalist? After all, it was written approximately 2,000 years ago, by mostly anonymous writers. How can we confirm that the Bible is telling us real historical facts and teaching us inerrant truths if we know nothing about the people who wrote it?
S: The voice in my head says I should believe it.
N: Hmmm. I think we are going to have to increase the dose of your medication, Supernaturalist. Ok, well, tell me a little more about your invisible friend, Jesus.
S: He is so wonderful! He was born of a virgin, you know.
N: A what? Supernaturalist, virgins cannot have babies. Didn’t your father have the “birds and the bees” conversation with you? Babies must have a mother and a father.
S: Jesus did have a father!
N: You just said he was born of a virgin. Which is it, Supernaturalist?
S: Jesus’ father was the Holy Ghost!
N: A ghost? Supernaturalist, did this ghost have a penis and testicles that produce human sperm, because if not, there is no way possible that a ghost fathered a child.
S: No, the Holy Ghost doesn’t have a body. It was **magic** sperm.
N: Magic sperm. Oh, my.
N: Ok, Supernaturalist, we’ve run out of time for today. I think we should start meeting twice weekly from now on. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE,
Thanks, glad to hear it.
I don’t think the amount of research done after the fact has any bearing on whether or not the accounts were based on an actual miracle or not. I can explain this better if needed, but otherwise I’m dismissing this one.
Earlier it was said that historians think that Jesus was known as a faith healer. You have not demonstrated that historians actually think the miracles themselves are historical. I agree there were many other ancient miracle workers and they are even common still today (Benny Hinn comes to mind). How does the number of miracle claims improve the odds of an actual miracle occurring? Do you believe in Virgin Mary sightings?
I think Flew made an overstatement. The evidence is that Jesus’ followers believed they saw him after he died. This is comparable to Elvis’ fans who believed they saw him after he died. We still need to ask ourselves what is the most probable explanation. As I said earlier, “Resurrections are not a common occurrence whereas illusions, hallucinations, exaggerations and mistakes are.”
I think the current population size of Christianity can be attributed to natural causes. What is more interesting to me are the facts that are closest to the time of the claimed miracles. The persecution claims are highly contested with some saying there was hardly any (Candida Moss). I probably fall somewhere in the middle, believing that there were some efforts by the Jews to persecute early followers of “the way”. Is there evidence to show that they died because of their belief in the resurrection / miracles? This would be important to show.
I think he probably had some great things to say, but I’m not sure this affects the probability of the miracle claims. The real people in question are the people who passed down the stories for 40 years and the anonymous authors who wrote the gospels.
I think this is an interesting point and one that I’d like to discuss in more detail. First, I’d like to read the page you linked to, but the link is not working. Can you try again?
Okay, but the historians are not saying that miracles actually occurred. I was basically pointing out that there are other sources of information (exaggerations, illusions, tall tales, etc) which need to be considered. If we had proof that the disciples John and Matthew wrote their gospels it would be a different category of evidence, but this is not the case. So I think it is fair to say that we don’t have any first hand testimony / direct eyewitness accounts of the resurrection or the miracles said to be performed by Jesus.
LikeLike
Luke 9:28-36
The Transfiguration
“About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,[a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.) 34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.”
Gary: That’s right. A group of first century Jews see and hear Moses and Elijah, the two greatest Jews in all of history, talking to Jesus, but decide to keep it quite…at least for awhile. Possible, but highly unlikely. But what is really odd is that John, one of the disciples allegedly present at this meeting with two dead men, REALLY keeps this story quite. John never says a word about this event in his gospel! Are we really to believe that any Jew would see Moses and Elijah with their own eyes and not think it important enough to mention in their own written story about the life of Jesus??
How much proof do Christians need to realize that most of this ancient tale is fiction?
LikeLiked by 1 person