Freaking out about what we really can "know" here...

[JoStories]

Whether or not John wrote anything is not relevant. I have no reason to doubt the story concerning him. I believe the Bible to be a faithful record (scholars desiring to cast doubt on it notwithstanding). You may ask what motive would scholars have for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. The answer is in a mirror.

This is patently false. Scholars base their opinions and supposition on historical data. But the real problem is that no one can prove that anyone or thing is divine as that would mean it was of God. Since God cannot be proven, that means you cannot prove Jesus was divine. You can believe he was. But you cannot state this as fact.

 

[JoStories]

All I need to know is the net result of these "scholarly" endeavors. You, yourself are an indication. It is the desire to discredit the scriptures and therefore the gospel. But, it matters not. As one prophet has said: You may as well attempt to stop the flow of the Missouri River with your arm as to attempt to stop the progress of the Lord's work.

No. Credible scholars would not set out to disprove that the scriptures are false. They would take historical data and work from there. It is true that some try to discredit but that indicates a bias from the outset. A true scholar would not work from a biased position. They could end up saying they don't see the evidence to support the veracity of the gospels but to set out to disprove makes their assumptions suspect to begin with.

 

[JoStories]

That's rich coming from an atheist.

As if that were your motive.

You know nothing of me or my level of education or what I understand in terms of the plan of salvation. Just fyi... I majored in philosophy and religion. I found most of what was taught at university as humorous at best and bordering on ridiculous at worst. My lifelong study of the gospel profited me more than the degrees I have or the 3.5 overall gpa that went with them. The focus of university education was as you seem interested in was its version of historicity and the method of determining it. Very little focus was on what the plan of salvation was about and the divinity of Jesus Christ was not even discussed. Neither was the atonement touched on. The reason being was and is a secular take on everything. The assumption going in is as you like to point out, that it is all myth anyway.
So...
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not..."

I, too, have taken many graduate courses in theology and religion (hence the PhD). Some did not teach the things you mention while others were strictly FOR that position. For example, one undergraduate course was The Bible as Literature, which meant that no discussion of the veracity of the Bible was the point. It was the story that mattered. OTOH, a 3 part level 600 series of courses on the NT delved into all of what you mention and much more. We studied such things as why Christ did or did not fulfill the Judaic requirements for the messiah, the historicity of his life, the languages of the Bible, the translations and how that changed the meaning and much more. And btw, a GPA doesn't mean a lot really. I have had students who got a 4.0 but after one semester, could not tell me what they had learned in an earlier course. Anyone can spew facts or write a cogent essay but really studying something means learning it in the long run and understanding it.

 

[JoStories]

I was about to say that you shouldn't indulge outhouse too much. The topic of this thread was miracles and the nature of knowledge. While discussing this topic outhouse responded to one of my posts, in which I made reference to a quote from one of the gospels, with a long sermon about the supposed non existence of Jesus or the non existence of anything he said. I made it clear to him there and then that he was trying to veer out of topic as the quote I used was really a side note and whether or not Jesus himself said was irrelevant to the point.

Why not 'indulge' Outhouse? Is it because he makes cogent and learned responses based on what I assume is years of studying your faith and its Bible? If you really wanted to prove that your faith is real and tangible, why would you not try to answer him? I find it perfectly acceptable to say that my faith is not something I can prove to Outhouse and he respects that. If you feel the gospels are true historical records, you must have proof of that, non? Why not try to impart that wisdom? Or is it because you cannot do so?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I, too, have taken many graduate courses in theology and religion (hence the PhD

What PhD?

 

[Thanda]

Why not 'indulge' Outhouse? Is it because he makes cogent and learned responses based on what I assume is years of studying your faith and its Bible? If you really wanted to prove that your faith is real and tangible, why would you not try to answer him? I find it perfectly acceptable to say that my faith is not something I can prove to Outhouse and he respects that. If you feel the gospels are true historical records, you must have proof of that, non? Why not try to impart that wisdom? Or is it because you cannot do so?

Who told you I have any desire to prove Outhouse or you whether there is historical evidence. Do you honestly believe that us believers base our faith solely on the historicity of the Bible? If so then you clearly don't understand the nature of spirituality.

The reason I don't want to indulge Outhouse is because I don't want him to learn a bad habit (or he should unlearn it if he has already learned it). I don't want him to become a "the bible is fictional" troll. He must learn to stick to the topic.

 

[JoStories]

What PhD?

Mine. In theology. My dissertation was approved.

 

[JoStories]

Who told you I have any desire to prove Outhouse or you whether there is historical evidence. Do you honestly believe that us believers base our faith solely on the historicity of the Bible? If so then you clearly don't understand the nature of spirituality.

The reason I don't want to indulge Outhouse is because I don't want him to learn a bad habit (or he should unlearn it if he has already learned it). I don't want him to become a "the bible is fictional" troll. He must learn to stick to the topic.

I understand spirituality incredibly well. I teach it in nursing and I have developed several graduate level courses about the topic. I just think that not trying to substantiate one's position while on a debate forum to be rather strange. Why else would one be here? And where have I said that faith is based on historical data alone? I have stated many times I believe in God but cannot prove that. That, for me, is faith. The difference is that I try to discuss things from my POV but admit that I have no proof and for me, the historicity plays an important role in understanding faith and such. And as for Outhouse being a troll, I find that to be frankly ridiculous. He is an incredibly learned poster and while I do disagree with him, sometimes strongly so, I love talking to him and learning from him.

 

[Willamena]

The point of this thread was not to debate miracles but what can be known by human beings.

I've always been a fan of "knowledge is a justified and true belief." With a sound epistemology, it goes far.

 

[Thanda]

I understand spirituality incredibly well. I teach it in nursing and I have developed several graduate level courses about the topic. I just think that not trying to substantiate one's position while on a debate forum to be rather strange. Why else would one be here? And where have I said that faith is based on historical data alone? I have stated many times I believe in God but cannot prove that. That, for me, is faith. The difference is that I try to discuss things from my POV but admit that I have no proof and for me, the historicity plays an important role in understanding faith and such. And as for Outhouse being a troll, I find that to be frankly ridiculous. He is an incredibly learned poster and while I do disagree with him, sometimes strongly so, I love talking to him and learning from him.

Look, there are many threads on this site and they discuss all sorts of topics. Each person is also free to start their own thread if they wish. Under those circumstances there is no reason to hijack a thread to discuss your favourite topic of interest.

I came to this thread because I was interested in discussing miracles and whether or not we can know whether they happen or have ever happened.

Now you tell me, what does this topic relate to the fact that we don't know for sure what Jesus ever said or if Moses ever existed?

 

[outhouse]

"the bible is fictional" troll. He must learn to stick to the topic.

This attitude is due to lack of reading and comprehending what I write, as well as a general overall lack of education on biblical topics.


I would never, nor have I ever stated all of the bible is fiction.


The bible factually is, song, poem, allegory, metaphor, legend, mythology, fiction, nonfiction, story. history, pseudo history, morals, lessons, laws, and so much more.

My knowledge I try and offer you! only offers a deeper understanding of text that builds value to the text, not detracts from it.

YOU need to learn the difference between truth education and knowledge and understanding, AND anti theism which I am not part of.

 

[Thanda]

For a very large group of people, aliens are real. Does that mean they are? No. Many people follow Scientology. Does that mean that not treating mental illness is the correct means of combating it? No. And science has made blind men see and deaf people hear so that point is really moot. What of the alleged miracles of other faiths? Do you consider them credible or is your view of what is credible based solely on the Bible? Seems rather selective to me.

My point is that I find nothing impossible about any of the miracles recorded in the Bible. Nothing that I understand about physics leads me to believe any of the miracles recorded in the Bible could not have rationally been done by a sufficiently advanced people as God and his Angels (and the demons) are supposed to be.

 

[outhouse]

Do you honestly believe that us believers base our faith solely on the historicity of the Bible?

One day you might understand you don't prove anything in theology.

YOU DONT believe the bible, you understand it.


Belief from admitted ignorance is not really belief

 

[JoStories]

Look, there are many threads on this site and they discuss all sorts of topics. Each person is also free to start their own thread if they wish. Under those circumstances there is no reason to hijack a thread to discuss your favourite topic of interest.

I came to this thread because I was interested in discussing miracles and whether or not we can know whether they happen or have ever happened.

Now you tell me, what does this topic relate to the fact that we don't know for sure what Jesus ever said or if Moses ever existed?

1. I am not the one responsible for this thread drift.
2. I wrote my dissertation on mystical experiences, which may include miracles, so we can discuss that at length if you wish. However, your tone tells me you are not willing to discuss much of anything with me. Not sure why that is but if are not interested, why debate at all?

 

[Thanda]

This attitude is due to lack of reading and comprehending what I write, as well as a general overall lack of education on biblical topics.


I would never, nor have I ever stated all of the bible is fiction.


The bible factually is, song, poem, allegory, metaphor, legend, mythology, fiction, nonfiction, story. history, pseudo history, morals, lessons, laws, and so much more.

My knowledge I try and offer you! only offers a deeper understanding of text that builds value to the text, not detracts from it.

YOU need to learn the difference between truth education and knowledge and understanding, AND anti theism which I am not part of.

Why did you choose this thread to educate me and others - why didn't start a thread about?

 

[JoStories]

My point is that I find nothing impossible about any of the miracles recorded in the Bible. Nothing that I understand about physics leads me to believe any of the miracles recorded in the Bible could not have rationally been done by a sufficiently advanced people as God and his Angels (and the demons) are supposed to be.

Are the miracles you believe in only to be found in the Bible or are others also something you would believe?

 

[outhouse]

My point is that I find nothing impossible about any of the miracles recorded in the Bible. Nothing that I understand about physics leads me to believe any of the miracles recorded in the Bible could not have rationally been done by a sufficiently advanced people as God and his Angels (and the demons) are supposed to be.

The problem here would be you refuse to look at what is actually known to base that faith on.


I know nothing about algebra, but I know better then to tell professors the equation and correct answer are wrong, and tell them I don't need to study to know what im talking about.

 

[outhouse]

I've always been a fan of "knowledge is a justified and true belief." With a sound epistemology, it goes far.

Typical.

For you to pick an unsettled definition to base knowledge on. At least I understand Plato argued his own guess here and did not admit to it being correct, nor many of his contemporaries.

Only later did religious zealots latch on to JTB

 

[Thanda]

1. I am not the one responsible for this thread drift.
2. I wrote my dissertation on mystical experiences, which may include miracles, so we can discuss that at length if you wish. However, your tone tells me you are not willing to discuss much of anything with me. Not sure why that is but if are not interested, why debate at all?

I didn't say you were. I was simply trying to explain to you why I'm not indulging Outhouse.

I'm very willing to discuss miracles: that's why I came to this thread.

 

[Thanda]

The problem here would be you refuse to look at what is actually known to base that faith on.


I know nothing about algebra, but I know better then to tell professors the equation and correct answer are wrong, and tell them I don't need to study to know what im talking about.

I think you are missing something here. There are two things relating to the miracles in the Bible.

1. Could they have happened - or can they ever happen.

2. Did they ever happen.

The first question deals with the science behind the miracles. The second deals with the history around them - or their historicity.

I came here specifically wishing to discuss whether miracles as a concept can ever be falsified on the basis that they are impossible. If miracles are impossible then the question of historicity takes care of itself. But the reverse is not true - proving that a story about a particular miracle is fictional does not answer the question of whether the miracle is possible or not.