Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cottage has already dealt with this as I would have. The existence of miracles does not depend on the existence of gods. Gods, however, do imply the existence of miracles.
What tomb? There were lots of stories of false miracles occurring in the Roman Empire in those days. Lucretius recounted many of them and wrote at length of the gullibility and superstitious nature of the general population. So it is easy to see how an account of a miraculous resurrection could come about and circulate widely as the "gospel truth". All it required was a cult dedicated to spreading and proving its truth. Stories about Jesus existed all over the place, and all it took was an effort to develop a single canon from them, which is what Irenaeus' orthodox "fourfold gospel" was all about--a selection of those stories that had gained popularity and could be stitched together (i.e. the synoptic gospels) and a fourth that was dear to his old hero, Polycarpus. That's all the "evidence" you have for the story, and it is hardly reasonable evidence of anything, given how prone people were to believing all sorts of weird tales.
Not really. The best explanation is that all four gospels were apocryphal at the time they were selected by church leaders. People were not all that good at distinguishing fact from fiction in those days, especially when it came to accounts of miracles. They aren't much better today, but we are better able to factcheck such allegations.
So, as I understand it, you are totally unaware of the fact that other religions exist and claim to have miracles that support them? For example, you've never heard of the Hindu milk miracle or Islamic miracles? What about Buddhist miracles? Theoretically, Buddha and the various boddhisattvas are not really gods. And can't saints perform miracles? Maybe you are challenged to think of miracles that could exist outside of your narrow religious context, but most of us are a bit more flexible.
Yes. What tomb? Where is it? All you have is a story about a tomb. And Tacitus, who, like his friend, Pliny the Younger, was hardly an expert on Christian doctrine, never said anything about a tomb.
Sorry, CotW, but that is a position taken only by religious conservatives, not the majority of biblical scholars. Most scholars do not believe that the Gospels were actually written by the people whose names were appended to them. It was common practice to forge documents of that sort, and people would attach names that they felt lent an air of credibility to the accounts. Basically, they were theological treatises that served the needs of various cults, but their true origin is simply not known. The oldest complete copies only go back to the 4th century, when the Roman Empire officially adopted Christianity as the state religion. At that point, all the other versions of Christianity were suppressed, sometimes quite methodically. The so-called Gospel of Peter had been declared heretical and suppressed. Our oldest copy of a gospel with that name dates back to only the 8th or 9th century, although we know that copies of it existed much earlier. Why were the originals declared heretical and suppressed? Well, it was said to promote docetism, the "heretical" belief that Jesus was not actually a real physical person. Was that Peter's "eyewitness" testimony? No? His name was on the document. Gee, wouldn't it be nice to know what that document actually said and when it was written? Well, people back then didn't want us to know. So, unless the original or a copy is ever found, we don't know.
My contention is that we don't really have anything but copies of early documents that may or may not have been altered in the copying process before the 4th century. What survives of earlier documents is only fragments. So we have only what those who managed the copying process wanted us to know, plus whatever archaeologists have managed to find that wasn't destroyed or missed by censors. This is not great evidence on which to base one's convictions. We have some documents that scholars pretty much believe Paul wrote, although there are quite a few attributed to Paul that they doubt he authored. We have nothing from James, Peter, or Jesus. Just copies of what Paul and others said about those earlier times.
I'm not understanding why you just accept these accounts on nothing more than faith--what appears to me to be wishful thinking. It's not as if there were no such thing as a false god or false religion. What distinguishes your religion from the false ones, other than your personal credulity?
That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified and then resurrected.
Or
Jesus: Dudes, dont be surprised if like some weird stuff happens in a few days.
Disciples: Yeah like what?
Jesus: Youll see!
Disciples:
I didnt think you had any better then a empty responce.
Call of the Wild said:
Call of the Wild said:
Call of the Wild said:
Not every instance of the Hindu milk miracle has been scientifically explained, so your skepticism seems hasty. The Buddhist miracles definitely did have eyewitnesses. How else could we have written stories testifying to their validity? As for Mohammed, the Quran itself is considered a miracle, since it was divinely inspired. However, Muslim tradition has it that he committed miracles, so your objection seems rather flimsy. Being an atheist, I can dismiss all of these claims out of hand, but you really need to put at least as much effort into refuting them as you have to refuting allegations of Christian miracles.
Actually, now that you bring it up, yes. The bodies of those crucified for treason were usually not returned to the families. Nevertheless, the tomb was originally the site of the most important miracle ever witnessed. So where is the tomb? Did his followers just forget? Did they think it unimportant to preserve the location? Surely someone must have realized that the location would be significant to future generations.
OK, then tell us who wrote the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of Mary? After all, we have exactly the same evidence that they were written by the people named in their titles, yet they never made it into canon. Indeed, where did all the apocryphal gospels come from? As for your claim that "it was unanimous that the disciple Matthew wrote...", let's just leave aside the fact that Matthew wasn't a disciple, but an alleged apostle, and ask: Which group of people were "unanimous" in supporting that decision? It certainly isn't a unanimous opinion of Bible scholars today. You appear to be relying on tradition, not scholarly opinion, for your "unanimity".
Good question. Where did those names come from? Ehrman provides a detailed discussion of it in Jesus, Interrupted, but the bottom line is we don't know why they were given those names. He felt that using those names helped to convey an air of authenticity to the accounts, but they were basically used as stories to evangelize a specific theological school. Mark isn't so concerned with Jesus' fulfillment of biblical prophecies, but Matthew was. So Matthew took a lot of material from Mark (sometimes verbatim), but he modified it to work in stories of how Jesus was proving his bona fides by fulfilling prophecies. Each canonical Gospel actually seems to have different theological lessons to convey. That's why there were rival gospels in the first place--to establish a specific school of thought on the significance of Christ and what his ministry was about. Different authors had different perspectives and beliefs. And they embellished the stories in different ways.
Well, we also have letters that most scholars believe were forgeries but nevertheless made it into canon. There are various theories as to why or how Paul's name got attached to them, but they stand as evidence of how easy it was to confuse people. As for the letters that most do think were authentically written by Paul, they really contain almost nothing at all of the canonical Gospel stories. Paul was strangely silent on the life of Jesus. Or, what he did say wasn't something that Christians wanted to preserve, because it contradicted their beliefs. Who knows?
Actually, both Tacitus and Josephus were writing many decades after the death of Jesus. They had no way to know or verify what Christians were saying, but their writings do testify to the existence of people who worshiped Christ. Worse yet, many scholars question the authenticity of some of the passages that reference Christ.
That does not even begin to explain how your God is distinguished from all those gods you believe to be false. The problem is that the false gods have worshipers that are equally convinced of the existence of their gods. They have their own scriptures and "theistic thinkers". Your God is not unique in that respect. What makes him more believable? What makes all of those other people wrong and you right? All you've said so far is "I'm convinced". So are people who disagree with you, so that doesn't sound very persuasive.
Actually, now that you bring it up, yes. The bodies of those crucified for treason were usually not returned to the families. Nevertheless, the tomb was originally the site of the most important miracle ever witnessed. So where is the tomb? Did his followers just forget? Did they think it unimportant to preserve the location? Surely someone must have realized that the location would be significant to future generations.
