Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[George-ananda]

Another Wikipedia quote (article on 'Creed') on 1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 15, 3-7 includes an early creed about Jesus' death and resurrection which was probably received by Paul. The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[5]

 

[Ingledsva]

I referred to 1Corinthians:

From Wikipedia article on First Epistle to the Corinthians in Authorship section:

There is near consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, typically classifying its authorship as "undisputed" (see Authorship of the Pauline epistles). The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion.

Which takes us right back to what I said.


Written later.


Paul (Saul) never met Jesus. He wrote after Jesus was dead. He claimed he got his authority and knowledge from a miracle on the road.


Bible says the original apostles were afraid of him ("after" his "miracle".)



*

 

[George-ananda]

Which takes us right back to what I said.


Written later.

Do you demand that it be written before the event? I just presented evidence (in post # 201) of a creed written no more than five years after Jesus' death. And it was written not by Paul but the Jerusalem Apostolic Community.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Jesus' only claim was that he was a son of God, as we all could be, according to him.

So are you stating that you are unaware of his predictions about his death and Resurrection?

In other words - not an actual son, or God, or part of a trinity.

John 20:28

What prophecies? He said certain things had to happen, - some of them because he was claiming to be the Messiah of Tanakh, and he set out to make them happen.

He was never threatened with execution because he claimed to be the Messiah, he was threatened for claiming to be the Son of God, as scripture indicates.

He said he would rise from the dead. That was the standard belief of his group.

The standard belief of what group? The disciples didn't even know what he meant by this UNTIL they saw the risen Jesus...so it isn't as if Jesus died and the disciples were standing around looking at their watches waiting for him to appear. Thats the point, the disciples claimed they saw the risen Jesus, and that is when the good news was spread.

They would rise to heaven, rather then stay in the pit/grave.

No...see you are just completely wrong. If that was the case then the narratives would have never recorded the women and the disciples discovering the empty tomb if they believed that Jesus "would rise to heaven, rather then stay in the pit/grave". When they discovered the empty tomb they were surprised, they expected Jesus' body to still be there, which is what you would expect when someone die and is buried.

Not a zombie rising - and walking around. That junk was added in long after he was dead.

Wrong again. Nothing was added later. The events that Paul mentioned in 1Corith 15:3-7 can be dated back to within 5 years after the Resurrection. So Jesus' death, burial, and Resurrection was an early belief, not something that became plagued over time with lengendary babble.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

LOL! Doesn't work.


I have no problem with Jesus having existed as a real person, - just like Tutankhamen, or Genghis khan.


The problem is the fantasy, added to people like the Rabbi Iesous.


There is absolutely no proof of any of the mythology or miracles.



And again - stop misusing the "Taxi Cab Fallacy." You obviously don't understand how it works.

So you believe Jesus existed, it is just the miracles that is so troubling to you, huh?

 

[Copernicus]

The point was...as long as God is possible, miracles are possible. I don't know what you are talking about here.

This is false. Whether God is possible or not, miracles are still "possible". The question that concerns most of us is not whether they are possible, but whether they are likely.

If it happened in history, then it is historical. The Resurrection is said to have happened in history, so therefore it is historical.

Lots of false things are said to have happened in history. You know better than that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is false. Whether God is possible or not, miracles are still "possible".

So if God doesn't exist then people can rise naturally from the dead?

The question that concerns most of us is not whether they are possible, but whether they are likely.

Right, and it is unlikely that the disciples would have been going around saying that Jesus rose from the dead if his body still lay in the tomb and they didn't see his Resurrected body.

Lots of false things are said to have happened in history. You know better than that.

I agree, but my point is the origin of the disciples belief is best explained by the Resurrection appearances being true.

 

[outhouse]

So if God doesn't exist then people can rise naturally from the dead?



.

Mark was the first gospel, it originally never even talked about the resurrection.


You would think if it was so dang important, it would have been originally there. NOT a later addition.


Visions and dreams were considered real back then.

 

[Ingledsva]

Another Wikipedia quote (article on 'Creed') on 1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 15, 3-7 includes an early creed about Jesus' death and resurrection which was probably received by Paul. The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[5]

If you read all the way through 1 Corinthians - you find that the other apostles were challenging Paul's teachings. - Paul whom never actually met Jesus.


Apparently even the zombie rise - rather then a Spiritual rising - as we have this -


1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?


So, even when these books came out there were APOSTLES saying there was no body rising from the grave and walking around.

*


We also have "Paul" saying this -


1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


Paul was still Saul, out persecuting Christians, at the time of Jesus' supposed rising. He did not see him. He is actually alluding to his supposed "vision" on the road, much later.


Also note that he goes to this SPIRITUAL rising - since obviously not all followers become zombies at death.


1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?


*

 

[cottage]

So if God doesn't exist then people can rise naturally from the dead?

Yes! People aren’t observed to rise from the dead, ‘naturally’ or otherwise, but whether or not God exists it remains logically possible that people can rise from the dead. And miracles aren’t to be identified exclusively with god-belief or the supernatural. Nevertheless the actuality of the dead coming to life and leaving their graves is highly improbable, as of course you would agree, and yet it appears to be almost commonplace according to the Bible.

Right, and it is unlikely that the disciples would have been going around saying that Jesus rose from the dead if his body still lay in the tomb and they didn't see his Resurrected body.

We are not obliged to accept the import that finds for extra-empirical conclusions from reported speech alone, especially since the agents or writers of those sources are unable to be cross-examined in person, and even if they were available there is no general corroborative or corresponding evidence of the supernatural to support their extraordinary accounts. The Gospels’ writers were all men of faith and they no doubt believed in their hearts what they recounted, and those who transcribed or made copies did so in the belief that it was the Truth, and so it was held and passed on as an Article of Faith. It is entirely conceivable "that good men have their doubts and yet persevere in it, with the best of intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting a Holy cause.” (David Hume).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Mark was the first gospel, it originally never even talked about the resurrection.


You would think if it was so dang important, it would have been originally there. NOT a later addition.


Visions and dreams were considered real back then.

Mark 16:4-7

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

"He has risen...He is not here" and "He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you". Now what part of this don't you understand? The tomb was empty, and they are promised to see the Resurrected Jesus once they got to Galilee. Seems rather...obvious.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well well well, if it isn't my good friend cot. We are a long way from the ontological argument, aren't we?

Yes! People aren’t observed to rise from the dead, ‘naturally’ or otherwise, but whether or not God exists it remains logically possible that people can rise from the dead.

So you agree with me? So far we are off to a good start here...I predict our disagrees will be evident shortly...

And miracles aren’t to be identified exclusively with god-belief or the supernatural. Nevertheless the actuality of the dead coming to life and leaving their graves is highly improbable, as of course you would agree, and yet it appears to be almost commonplace according to the Bible.

Name me one miracle that can be explained using the scientific method. If you can't, then it follows that miracles ARE to be identified exclusively with god-belief and the supernatural. And you are right, rising from the dead is a commonplace according to the bible, but in every case God had his hand in the whole ordeal. People wasn't rising from the dead because they wanted to, they rose because God wanted them too, and the last time I checked, that is a big difference.

We are not obliged to accept the import that finds for extra-empirical conclusions from reported speech alone

But we can draw the conclusion that those who were involved in the ordeal sincerly believed what they thought, and the fact of the matter is, the disciples believed they saw Jesus' post-mortem. The origin of their beliefs must be explained.

, especially since the agents or writers of those sources are unable to be cross-examined in person, and even if they were available there is no general corroborative or corresponding evidence of the supernatural to support their extraordinary accounts.

We have evidence that within 5 years of the cross, the disciples believed and preached about a Resurrected Messiah. If they believed it, then the origin of their beliefs must be explained, again.

The Gospels’ writers were all men of faith and they no doubt believed in their hearts what they recounted, and those who transcribed or made copies did so in the belief that it was the Truth, and so it was held and passed on as an Article of Faith. It is entirely conceivable "that good men have their doubts and yet persevere in it, with the best of intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting a Holy cause.” (David Hume).

Again, if you admit that all the Gospel writers were men of faith and believed in their hearts what they recounted, then how is this belief best explained? And it is also worth mentioning that Paul and James were both skeptics at first, and they both converted based on eyewitness testimony and Paul's personal experience.

 

[outhouse]

Mark 16:4-7

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

"He has risen...He is not here" and "He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you". Now what part of this don't you understand? The tomb was empty, and they are promised to see the Resurrected Jesus once they got to Galilee. Seems rather...obvious.

Was the man a ghost?


Why does no other gospel say that?


Visions and dreams were considered real. And remember, this was written 40 years after his death by people that were not there and did not know him.

Why did later redactors have to doctor the resurrection up?

 

[George-ananda]

If you read all the way through 1 Corinthians - you find that the other apostles were challenging Paul's teachings. - Paul whom never actually met Jesus.


Apparently even the zombie rise - rather then a Spiritual rising - as we have this -


1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
So, even when these books came out there were APOSTLES saying there was no body rising from the grave and walking around.

It seems to me Paul is saying; if Jesus resurrected (as they were preaching); why do some still say there is no such thing as resurrection of the dead (for everyone). Apparently there was a controversy over whether everyone will be resurrected. That's how I read it. Paul is not saying there are apostles preaching against Jesus' resurrection.

Anyway, my best opinion is that Jesus' appeared physically to some after His death as the faithful needed support and encouragement. I've read others who agree that the rise of this small cult is hard to explain without some transforming events to galvanize courage; and the resurrection seems to be it from the earliest known information.

If these people experienced something physically real, I wouldn't expect any documentation we could call official proof from this time period. So what we do have seems consistent with my best opinion. As I said earlier in this thread; Miracles are meant to support belief not to compel it. That's exactly what we have with the resurrection evidence; enough to support belief but not enough to ever compel or prove belief. My belief is also that this is the gentle way of a wisdom beyond ours (giving support but not proof for faith).

Also, outside of this resurrection discussion, I am a convinced believer from the quality and quantity of evidence that higher beings can and do interact with the physical world in a way that is paranormal to our physical expectations. But these powers are used with a gentle wisdom.

 

[cottage]

Well well well, if it isn't my good friend cot. We are a long way from the ontological argument, aren't we?

Yes, we are. Although I'm not sure we've finished with that argument?

Name me one miracle that can be explained using the scientific method. If you can't, then it follows that miracles ARE to be identified exclusively with god-belief and the supernatural. And you are right, rising from the dead is a commonplace according to the bible, but in every case God had his hand in the whole ordeal. People wasn't rising from the dead because they wanted to, they rose because God wanted them too, and the last time I checked, that is a big difference.

That's wrong. There are lots of naturally occurring events that aren’t directly explainable by the scientific method. And on that basis the flight of a bumblebee is a miracle, as is the function of the human brain, which is composed of 78% water with the remainder made up of carbs, lipids and salts, and is only understood in terms of correlation as stimuli and actions. A miracle if ever there was one! But the miraculous brain actually exists whereas no supernatural events can be confirmed with the same veracity. And where may I ask are the multitude of witnesses that would have seen all the graves opening, (52, I believe) when Jesus was crucified?

Again, if you admit that all the Gospel writers were men of faith and believed in their hearts what they recounted, then how is this belief best explained? And it is also worth mentioning that Paul and James were both skeptics at first, and they both converted based on eyewitness testimony and Paul's personal experience.

There is reason to think the Gospel writer's beliefs were profound and genuine, and that those beliefs were in accordance with a pre-existing doctrine. So it isn’t a matter of their belief that needs to be questioned, but the means by which they conveyed it into the transcription, for they would incorporate in the documents what they earnestly and profoundly believed to be the truth. What can be said with near certainty is that first and foremost the men presented evidence of their faith; but whether the events described could be counted as factual, given that they were wholly unnatural occurrences, which were only supported by documents, is addressed by asking: Why, if in everyday life, we would not accept testimonies alone as incontrovertible evidence for alleged supernatural events then why must we allow a special exception in this particular case?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, we are. Although I'm not sure we've finished with that argument?

No we haven't. I guess we are going to have to disagree to disagree lol. I think the argument is valid and sound, and my whole purpose was to put the argument out there and see if it can withstand scrutiny, and if I can offer responses to the attacks. I think I did (although you will disagree), and that is all I need to do. But you are a worthy opponent, I must admit.

That's wrong. There are lots of naturally occurring events that aren’t directly explainable by the scientific method.

If the scientific method will someday be able to explain a miracle, then guess what, it isn't a miracle. Either that or we have two different definitions of what a miracle is.

And on that basis the flight of a bumblebee is a miracle, as is the function of the human brain, which is composed of 78% water with the remainder made up of carbs, lipids and salts, and is only understood in terms of correlation as stimuli and actions. A miracle if ever there was one! But the miraculous brain actually exists whereas no supernatural events can be confirmed with the same veracity.

As a dualist I don't believe the mind and the brain are the same thing, so that is a miracle, I agree, and I believe intelligent design best explains the phenomenon. Not only that, but life from nonlife is also a miracle.

And where may I ask are the multitude of witnesses that would have seen all the graves opening, (52, I believe) when Jesus was crucified?

I don't know. As long as there were eyewitnesses to the most important Resurrection of all, the Resurrection of Christ, that is what matters.

There is reason to think the Gospel writer's beliefs were profound and genuine, and that those beliefs were in accordance with a pre-existing doctrine.

Um, like what?

So it isn’t a matter of their belief that needs to be questioned, but the means by which they conveyed it into the transcription, for they would incorporate in the documents what they earnestly and profoundly believed to be the truth.

Ok, and?

What can be said with near certainty is that first and foremost the men presented evidence of their faith; but whether the events described could be counted as factual, given that they were wholly unnatural occurrences, which were only supported by documents, is addressed by asking: Why, if in everyday life, we would not accept testimonies alone as incontrovertible evidence for alleged supernatural events then why must we allow a special exception in this particular case?

We are talking about a historical event, cottage. All we have from ancient history is testimonies of who said what. We cannot go back in time and check for ourselves, so the writings that were left behind in ANY historical context, whether natural or supernatural, is all we have, for the most part.

 

[thau]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural? Where are the miracles that are breaking laws of nature at these days? Our natural world really doesn't seem to have a case for the supernatural, or it is just plain natural.

The following article takes a pretty educated look at the debate for the supernatural. I will quote the conclusion in case TLDR syndrome kicks in.

"Birds of a feather flock together."

My problem is your explanations, science's explanations, and naysayers' explanations fall so far short of reasonableness or feasibility, it only reinforces my "presuppositions."

Science has proven the Shroud's supernatural qualities, given no explanation whatsoever for weeping statues, weeping icons, etc., virtually now in the hundreds just this past 25 years. How many were reported weeping in the Ukraine and Russia this past month or so? Well you would not know that answer because the media in the West shies away from those stories. And not because science has done the investigations for them up front either.

Nor am I holding out on science's explanation as to what took place in Zeitoun, Egypt in 1968 on at least 20 different occasions before tens of thousands of Muslims. Mass hallucination doesn't cut it, sorry.

Also of some interest is that Snopes.com won't touch these and many others reported on.

 

[outhouse]

"Science has proven the Shroud's supernatural qualities, given no explanation whatsoever for weeping statues, weeping icons, etc., virtually now in the hundreds just this past 25 years. .

:biglaugh:


Becuase you dont like how science has refuted these bogus claims, does not mean some scientist have not given answers.

 

[outhouse]

So far too date.

No miracle has a bit of hsitoricity as ever happened with a supernatural origin. Or it would not be supernatural

 

[jtartar]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural? Where are the miracles that are breaking laws of nature at these days? Our natural world really doesn't seem to have a case for the supernatural, or it is just plain natural.

The following article takes a pretty educated look at the debate for the supernatural. I will quote the conclusion in case TLDR syndrome kicks in.

idav,
I don't know about you, but to me it seems a little crazy for a man, who lacks knowledge of anything to question miracles. If you stop to think about it everything we see in nature is a miracle to us.
Does it seem hard to you that the Almighty God who created Heaven and Earth and everything in them could do an act that would be a miracle to us?
There is a dictionary term, ANOMY, that means: something that happens that there is no KNOWN law to explain.
Nothing is a miracle to The Almighty God, everything is simple to Him. Stop questioning everything we do not understand, which is most things.
Another term; Egocentric Predicament, means that we are so limited in knowledge, how can we even reason on things that are so above us??