Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Desert Snake]

I believe that sychronistic events happen all the time and some people would consider sychronistic events to be miracles.

Mmm you mean coincidences? Yeah I wouldn't consider those miracles.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The "evidence" is that there was supposedly a solar eclipse within a certain amount of time that is similar to when Jesus was supposed to have existed. There is those who think that the solar eclipse played a part in the story that was told later. Some cosmological event that was later given significance.

Ok???

Or it could be unrelated. Though it is also notable that I am having a hard time finding an on-christian source that places Phlegon as citing the darkness. And his lived 200 years later in the 2nd century in Greece. Quite a ways away from Rome. Why did others not write this? People who could have seen it first hand?

The scripture doesn't state that darkness covered the entire world, but the entire "land"...which mean that the darkness more than likely took place locally. And how much darkness? Total darkness? Semi-darkness? What?

The first does have some loose evidence. The second is more questionable. Though I can find Scientology followers to make even more absurd claims today. What separates them from other cults?

What are the claims of Scientology? Such claims need to be dealt with on case by case basis.

My problem is that you are saying that he met people first hand. We also have mountains of evidence dating back to the time when Alexander the great was alive that can prove his existence. Evidences from the countries he conquered ect. But even so there is incredible amounts of evidence that is from several sources. There is no doubt that Alexander the great existed.

There is no doubt that Jesus Christ existed either. If you doubt this then you are in the very small minority...even the most liberal skeptics like Bart Erhman and Richard Carrier all agree that based on the historical evidence, Jesus existed.

Second, you say that we have mountains of evidence dating back to the time when Alexander the Great was alive...we have the same thing with Jesus. We have external biblical sources that state that he lived, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate....and shortly after his death a religious movement began...and we can put together a timeline from the death of Jesus to now, just like we can do for any other historical figure (in the context of who they were and what they accomplished).

Jesus on the other hand has the bible, a text that has been changed and edited over time whose whole existence is based upon it being true ( much like every other sacred text in the world) and a few strands of weak 3rd party evidences. Zero third party evidences for vast miracles or Resurrection.

All five references to Jesus were external, by non-Christian sources. As far as the bible being changed and edited...research has shown that the bible is the most copied book in history, and it has a textual accuracy rate of 99% from the originals.

The American Journal of Biblical Theology

It matters. You were attempting to pass it off as if someone at the time of Jesus talked to the literally genetic brother of Jesus Christ in person to get first hand accounts. .

Not at all. I am simply stating that in the context of the passage, Josephus is clearly mentioning James in passing. The name "James" was popular then, so if you say "James, brother of Jesus", or "James, the Lords brother", that would leave little doubt to which James you are referring too, especially with a popular name like James.

People didn't have last names during those times, which is why throughout the bible when folks are mentioned, it would be "Monk, son of William"...so that people know who you are talking about.

However the truth is that he talked to the inheritor of the cult of Christianity in its early years. And it is someone who had not seen Jesus personally and everything he knew was at best second hand

Dude, what do you think history is? How many second, third, or fourth hand accounts do historians of TODAY rely on regarding an event of the distant past? Josephus was a Roman citizen, and you don't need to see someone personally to know whether they existed or not. Have you seen George Washington personally? Or Julius Caesar? Or Hannibal?? I mean, cmon.

I think I have made it clear in my posts throughout the forum that I don't say its impossible that an outspoken Jewish Rabbi named Yeshua didn't whip up some political shinanigans and get a cult following. I have made it clear that there is zero evidence that the Jesus of the bible existed in the way Christians claim. You have attempted to prove that historically we have mentions of Jesus therefore all of the bible is correct. Which is false.

Did a man named Jesus called "the Christ" exist or not?

We KNOW that Muhammad existed. There is zero doubt in any historian that he existed. Does that make Islam the correct religion?

We know Muhammad exist, but we don't know that Jesus exist? I guess Jesus is on the back-burner compared to everyone huh? Is it that difficult to come to terms with?

If we want to get technical Jesus didn't create Christianity and nor did he coin the term. Not even the bible claims this. He was a Jew. He even said he was not here to destroy the old law. (if we were to go by the bible).

Um, Jesus founded the religion...the religion is based off of HIS teachings, Monk...or you don't accept that either? Second, he didn't "coin" the term...but the bible states that the early followers of Jesus were called CHRISTIANS.

Acts 11:25-26

25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

You do question the credibility of the passage. And the point (again) isn't that he in no way mentioned "Yeshua" but rather there is still nothing to indicate he had any supernatural abilities.

Yes he did, have you read the text or are you just being ignorant? He said

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.[26]"

Does this mean that Wiccan's going around claiming that magic works by default mean that Wicca is correct?

No. Tell them to use their magic arts to predict a future event, which is the biblical criteria for deciphering the real from the fake. If they can't, then they are practicing a false art.

I could bring up dozens of other accounts in the bible that are not taken literally but that would be a waste of my efforts.

Yeah it would be a waste.

Are you trying to say that it is impossible for it to have had a spiritual meaning? That your interpretation is the one and only way it could have happened and that the evidence supports it so much that you can make claims of truth about Jesus?

If it was spiritual, then why did Jesus have Thomas touch his physical body? John 20:26-27. Or better yet...


37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Why did Jesus say "a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have"?

Flesh and bones? Touch me? Cmon now, Monk. I guess being wrong doesn't seem to bother you, does it?

No it wouldn't. If we didn't have the gospels and we only had the letters then we would not be able to assume there was anything about miracles. There was no mention of his miracles. Nothing.

Paul's purpose was not to provide his audience a biography of Jesus, Monk. His purpose was to preach about the greatest miracle, and that is the Resurrection, and to strengthen the early church by teaching them the way of the Word...that was his purpose. If he was writing an biography of Jesus, and there was no miracles mentioned, then yeah, you may have a point...which is why the biographies of Jesus DOES have miracles recorded in them.

as before. No. It does however lend evidence to the legend theory which states that as time went on the ventures of Yeshua would become told with more and more flavor. Which is why the first chronologically written gospel had the least amount of "magical" or "supernatural" appeal and then with each new writing it got more and more supernatural. All of which of course are still far beyond anything Paul wrote.

Bogus. The book of Mark is the shortest Gospel, so of course the other books will have more accounts of miracles. Second, with the exception of resurrections, Mark is the only one that doesn't record a resurrection besides that of Jesus'. Almost every other miracle "type" was recorded in all four Gospels...now of course the amount of miracles recorded may differ, but that should be expected given the fact that they are all independent books, and we should expect differences.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Good idea! Oh, and you haven’t made any responses at all to the MOA thread I started. Can we continue with that?

You started a thread based on the MOA? I wasn't aware of that. I will see you there once the heat from this subject begin to cool off.

There is no such entity as ‘non-life’. Life cannot come from non-life any more than something can come from nothing.

I have a hair pick that I use to pick my beard..is my hair pick "alive"?

But something can exist where before there was nothing. There is no contradiction in a thing coming into existence uncaused. Look back at as many posts in as many threads as you like and you will see I have been entirely consistent in arguing this point.

What a coincidence, because if you look back at my many prior posts, I have been arguing AGAINST this.

The Kalam or First-Cause argument states that everything that begins to exist needs a cause for its existence. The universe began to exist, it is said. Therefore the universe requires a cause for its existence for there cannot (it is said) be an infinite regress and so this cause must end at something uncaused. The argument wants to infer the existence of a supernatural being from the existence of the natural world. It says:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
P2. The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe was caused to exist

Ok, that is the kalam in a nut shell.

But the world could still be eternal, the cause of all events, existing originally as an infinitesimally dense particle of matter which at the occurrence of the Big Bang expanded to become what we have now. The usual response is that the eternity of the world is an impossible concept because the world exists in time which means there would be an infinite number of past events. But if the Big Bang was the beginning of time then there is no infinite regression of past events.

Got to stop you there. You have to explain the expansion, cot. If there was nothing outside the singularity, then the cause of the expansion would have to exist internally within the singularity, which seems absurd because the question would then become "Why did the singularity begin to expand when it did"? Why not later, or sooner? What at that exact time as opposed to other times?

There is just no answer to this at all. Second, that would presuppose that the singularity was just sitting there (wherever "there" is) for eternity, waiting to expand for whatever reason.

So, let’s reformulate the argument:

P1. All events are caused
P2. The universe is not an event
Conclusion: The universe is uncaused

Premise 1 is in empirical agreement with what we observe to be true. Premise 2 cannot be denied without begging the question, and the conclusion follows necessarily.

I disagree with P2. I'd like you to define "event" and please explain how does this not apply to a universe that began to expand.

Well of course if God exists the Resurrection is possible, but you’re starting with the probability of God’s existence to find for the truth of the Resurrection, which in turn proves the existence of God.

Let me correct you there, it doesn't prove the existence of God, in general. It proves the existence of WHICH GOD, specifically. The other theistic arguments make a general case for a supernatural Creator. The argument for the Resurrection makes a case for which God exists, namely, the Judeo-Christian God, which is why the Resurrection argument is important for Christians.

I really could not agree more with that statement.

Genetic fallacy

LOL! That was genuine laughter by the way. We are not talking about personal beings per se, we’re talking about God. It is logically absurd to propose the Supreme Being, one who is sufficient and complete in all possible things, as being affected or emotionally troubled by something beyond or outside his omnipotence.

I will admit it, I can't speak for anyone else, but this is the single most difficult challenge for me. I think ultimately, the question deals primarily with benevolence. For example, you say "...one who is sufficient and complete in all possible things, as being affected or emotionally troubled..."

But at the same time though, does being sufficient and complete mean that you don't care? Or if you care, does that mean that you aren't sufficient and complete? I will have to think more on this.

Yes of course because that is the subject that is being debated!

You were the one that brought up the kalam.

Belief in God isn’t based on inference; it is based on faith. Any inferences are subsequent and not antecedent to the faith.

But we are talking about the Resurrection, at which belief in God IS the inference.

You asked if I’d become a Christian if there were a detailed, recorded account of people that believed in the resurrection of the holy men. I replied that I wouldn’t on the basis of claims in a book, which seems to me to be an entirely reasonable response by any standard.

Wait a minute, all historical claims are based primarily in some type of writings...so in that case you shouldn't believe in anything that preceded photo, video, or audio recordings.

Second, if you wouldn't believe even if there were recorded accounts of the subject at hand, then it seems rather pointless to debate it with you (although, fun nevertheless). And I mean that with all due respect lol. You are making a big fuss about this particular subject, yet if it had what you claim it doesn't currently have, you STILL wouldn't believe it. I find that hilarious LMAO.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The scripture doesn't state that darkness covered the entire world, but the entire "land"...which mean that the darkness more than likely took place locally. And how much darkness? Total darkness? Semi-darkness? What?

That is for you to figure out and provide a coherent argument with it. Simply stating that at some point in time there was a solar eclipse (which happens at least once every hundred years) happened within decades of Yeshua doesn't' really support the argument that his Crucifixion created a massive darkness across the land.

And then you still haven't answered the opposite conclusion which is that the story of Yeshua's Crucifixion only gained popularity because of it.

What are the claims of Scientology? Such claims need to be dealt with on case by case basis.

*knock knock*
Hello. My name is Peter. Jesus Christ rose from the dead and we'd like to tell you how to save your soul.
vs.
*knock knock*
Did you know you are the reincarnation of a dead Alien race that was wiped out by their leader, Lord Zenu?

Both are equally unbelievable. Both have no actual evidence. Both are going only off of the word of the followers. By this logic you should believe Scientology.

There is no doubt that Jesus Christ existed either. If you doubt this then you are in the very small minority...even the most liberal skeptics like Bart Erhman and Richard Carrier all agree that based on the historical evidence, Jesus existed.

Second, you say that we have mountains of evidence dating back to the time when Alexander the Great was alive...we have the same thing with Jesus. We have external biblical sources that state that he lived, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate....and shortly after his death a religious movement began...and we can put together a timeline from the death of Jesus to now, just like we can do for any other historical figure (in the context of who they were and what they accomplished).

Again I haven't disputed (or specifically promoted) the idea of a historical Yeshua. I do, specifically, oppose your claim that there is evidence of the biblical Yeshua.

And no there is no where near as much evidence for Yeshua as there is for Alexander the great. There are a few, vague, independent sources. There is nothing but independent sources and archives of evidence for Alexander the great. But both are really beside the point.

All five references to Jesus were external, by non-Christian sources. As far as the bible being changed and edited...research has shown that the bible is the most copied book in history, and it has a textual accuracy rate of 99% from the originals.

The American Journal of Biblical Theology

Only three of the five are actually considered legitimate by historians. And none of them mention anything about miracles or evidences of divinity. Again, at best he was an outspoken Rabbi that gained a political cult following. That is the most we can assume based on evidence.

Changes to the Bible through the ages are being studied by New Orleans scholars | NOLA.com

Not at all. I am simply stating that in the context of the passage, Josephus is clearly mentioning James in passing. The name "James" was popular then, so if you say "James, brother of Jesus", or "James, the Lords brother", that would leave little doubt to which James you are referring too, especially with a popular name like James.

People didn't have last names during those times, which is why throughout the bible when folks are mentioned, it would be "Monk, son of William"...so that people know who you are talking about.

I agree. But the evidence supports the idea that he was a "spiritual" brother. Not a physical one. Not to mention that it was 60 years later and he would not have been able to get a first hand account with any living sibling of Yeshua.

Dude, what do you think history is? How many second, third, or fourth hand accounts do historians of TODAY rely on regarding an event of the distant past? Josephus was a Roman citizen, and you don't need to see someone personally to know whether they existed or not. Have you seen George Washington personally? Or Julius Caesar? Or Hannibal?? I mean, cmon.

obviously. And I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you taking loose historical evidence of a relatively unknown time for Christianity and putting it forward and definitive evidence that Christianity is the correct religion. Again the whole argument I have been putting on from the get go is not that "Yeshua didn't exist" but that there is no evidence of a "bibilical Yeshua who preformed miracles".

That is obviously not supported by historical accounts and you need to quit saying it does.

Did a man named Jesus called "the Christ" exist or not?

Wholly irrelevant. I do think there is ample evidence to suggest the outspoken rabbi named "Yeshua".

We know Muhammad exist, but we don't know that Jesus exist? I guess Jesus is on the back-burner compared to everyone huh? Is it that difficult to come to terms with?

Deflecting. You state that the mere existence of a man named Yeshua who was called "Christ" by his followers is evidence of Christianity's verification. However we know that Muhammad exists (and with far more evidence to the point that it is non-contestable) but you are not a Muslim. Why is that ?

Um, Jesus founded the religion...the religion is based off of HIS teachings, Monk...or you don't accept that either? Second, he didn't "coin" the term...but the bible states that the early followers of Jesus were called CHRISTIANS.

But he never called himself a "christian". I don't think there is evidence of that. In fact there really isn't much evidence that Christianity took off or became relevant till several decades later. This suggests that the death of Yeshua more than likely was utilized as a tool to promote the religion. Everyone loves a martyr.

Yes he did, have you read the text or are you just being ignorant? He said

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.[26]"

Strange I didn't see anything about supernatural powers there. Can you bold it for me?

No. Tell them to use their magic arts to predict a future event, which is the biblical criteria for deciphering the real from the fake. If they can't, then they are practicing a false art.

Zero christian phrophecies have been in any way compelling.

If it was spiritual, then why did Jesus have Thomas touch his physical body? John 20:26-27. Or better yet...


37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Why did Jesus say "a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have"?

Flesh and bones? Touch me? Cmon now, Monk. I guess being wrong doesn't seem to bother you, does it?

It bothers me that you use the books written after the Epistles of Paul to justify something Paul said. I have no doubt that the 4 gospels intentionally stated that Jesus rose physically from the dead. I have my doubts that Paul ever intended that. I think that the further along in time we go the more absurd the claims about Yeshua gets.

Paul's purpose was not to provide his audience a biography of Jesus, Monk. His purpose was to preach about the greatest miracle, and that is the Resurrection, and to strengthen the early church by teaching them the way of the Word...that was his purpose. If he was writing an biography of Jesus, and there was no miracles mentioned, then yeah, you may have a point...which is why the biographies of Jesus DOES have miracles recorded in them.

I think there is room for doubt. I think that if it was that important then Paul would have mentioned it. I think what you are bringing up here is just backtracking and copouts.

Bogus. The book of Mark is the shortest Gospel, so of course the other books will have more accounts of miracles. Second, with the exception of resurrections, Mark is the only one that doesn't record a resurrection besides that of Jesus'. Almost every other miracle "type" was recorded in all four Gospels...now of course the amount of miracles recorded may differ, but that should be expected given the fact that they are all independent books, and we should expect differences.

So the length of Mark is evidence against the ever increasing mystical nature of the gospels. No its impossible that Mark based his writings off of Paul and others who have passed down the oral tradition and that the following and subsequent gospels were not even further adaptations of the same "big fish" story?

Of course not. Totally bogus.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is for you to figure out and provide a coherent argument with it. Simply stating that at some point in time there was a solar eclipse (which happens at least once every hundred years) happened within decades of Yeshua doesn't' really support the argument that his Crucifixion created a massive darkness across the land.

First off, that isn't the argument. The darkness that covered the land in the biblical narrative was not from a solar eclipse. The point is, either Thallus or Phlegon (or both) makes a mention of a darkness that covered the land during the time of the crucifixion, and they both ATTEMPTED to explain it away by offering it a natural explanation like a solar eclipse.

And then you still haven't answered the opposite conclusion which is that the story of Yeshua's Crucifixion only gained popularity because of it.

You asked why was there no mention of this beyond the Gospel, yet now you are claiming that Jesus crucifixion gained popularity because of it??? Makes no sense.

Both are equally unbelievable. Both have no actual evidence. Both are going only off of the word of the followers. By this logic you should believe Scientology.

Christianity is the #1 religion in the world, so apparently, the billions of people that believe in the Resurrection apparently think it is believable. I have no reasons to believe in Scientology. I have good reasons, in my opinion, to believe in Christianity.

Again I haven't disputed (or specifically promoted) the idea of a historical Yeshua. I do, specifically, oppose your claim that there is evidence of the biblical Yeshua.

History tells us that the followers of Jesus claimed that he had risen from the dead. This particular claim is historical. Christianity didn't spread based on the claim that Jesus was an ordinary rabbi who just lived and died. It spread based on the claim that Jesus was the Christ and he rose from the dead three days after he was crucified. That, is historical...and as long as the mere claim is historical, then it seems as if the concept of the biblical Jesus follows. The Resurrection claim is more extraordinary than turning water into wine or calming a storm, so if I am to believe that a man rose from the dead, why shouldn't I believe that he performed other miracles?

Now, that explanation may not be good enough for you, and if it isn't, just continue with your disbelief, and I will continue with my belief, and let the chips fall where they may.

And no there is no where near as much evidence for Yeshua as there is for Alexander the great. There are a few, vague, independent sources. There is nothing but independent sources and archives of evidence for Alexander the great.

There is more evidence for Alexander the Great, but which name carries more weight today? Which name has more of a legacy behind it? Nobody cares about Alexander the Great today, but throughout churches (and otherwise) all over the entire world, Jesus name is being mentioned. Jesus named is being mentioned in some way, shape, or form every single day of the year. Alexander the Great, not so much. Nobody cares. So for there to be so much evidence of Alexander the Great, that says nothing based on the billions of followers who give praise to Jesus Christ every single day of the year.

Only three of the five are actually considered legitimate by historians. And none of them mention anything about miracles or evidences of divinity. Again, at best he was an outspoken Rabbi that gained a political cult following. That is the most we can assume based on evidence.

A case can be made for all five...and that is enough for virtually all historians to agree and accept the fact that Jesus existed as a historical figure...whether you want to accept the miracles is up to you, but there is no denying that the man existed. Second, Jesus did not gain a "political" cult following..he was not involved in politics, nor were his followers. Third, the mere belief of the Resurrection goes back to within 5 years after the cross, so if the Resurrection claim is historical, then so were the other miracles.

I agree. But the evidence supports the idea that he was a "spiritual" brother. Not a physical one. Not to mention that it was 60 years later and he would not have been able to get a first hand account with any living sibling of Yeshua.

Whether he was a spiritual brother or physical brother is completely irrelevant...the point is, Jesus name is mentioned..to say that Jesus had ANY kind of brother is to admit that Jesus existed.

Second, he was a freakin historian. I cant believe how you keep mentioning this "60 year later" crap and how he would not have been able to get "first hand accounts"...how many "first hand accounts" do the historians of today have of anything that happened over 2,000 years ago? 60 years later is still more close to the events than you are, on a religious forum talking about events that happened 2,000 years ago. He is a lot closer to the events than you and I are, and he WASN'T a Christian, so he had no reason to lie about anything. So I will go with the unbiased person who wrote 60 years after the fact before I will go with the biased skeptic speaking on matters that happened over 2,000 years after the fact.

obviously. And I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you taking loose historical evidence of a relatively unknown time for Christianity and putting it forward and definitive evidence that Christianity is the correct religion. Again the whole argument I have been putting on from the get go is not that "Yeshua didn't exist" but that there is no evidence of a "bibilical Yeshua who preformed miracles".

That is obviously not supported by historical accounts and you need to quit saying it does.

Well, the historical accounts state that the disciples, who did have "first hand accounts", claimed that Jesus rose from the dead...and if a man can rise from the dead, he should be able to turn water into wine or calm a storm.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Deflecting. You state that the mere existence of a man named Yeshua who was called "Christ" by his followers is evidence of Christianity's verification. However we know that Muhammad exists (and with far more evidence to the point that it is non-contestable) but you are not a Muslim. Why is that ?

Because I believe in the historical evidence for the Resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he was who he said he was, so I don't to look any further than that. Muhammad, on the other hand, did not perform any miracles whatsoever, and anyone can start a religion.

But he never called himself a "christian". I don't think there is evidence of that.

Jesus also never called himself a liar, but does that mean because he didn't call himself a liar that he was a liar? Let's stop the foolishness. So what if he didn't call himself a Christian...and that wouldn't make any freakin sense anyway...Christians are called Christians because they are followers of Christ, and for him to call himself a Christian would mean he would be a follower of himself...and somehow, that doesn't seem to make any sense.

In fact there really isn't much evidence that Christianity took off or became relevant till several decades later. This suggests that the death of Yeshua more than likely was utilized as a tool to promote the religion. Everyone loves a martyr.

Several decades? That is bogus. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians about 55 AD or earlier, and that is at best within 20 years after the cross, and the details of Acts starts from the moment Jesus ascended into heaven!!! The book of Acts gives names and locations of real historical people and real places, so a timeline can be constructed.

And not only that, but a case can be made that the Gospels themselves were all written before 70AD, except maybe John...and that is still within 40 years of the cross, which is not long considering this is still within the lifetime of the disciples, and who are we to tell them when they should start writing their Gospels.

So once again, you are just, wrong.

Strange I didn't see anything about supernatural powers there. Can you bold it for me?

The purpose of Josephus was to provide external biblical evidence that Jesus existed, which is more than what some of you radicals on here would like to admit.

Zero christian phrophecies have been in any way compelling.

The good thing about Christian apologetics is there is apologists in virtually ever aspect...we have defenders that make a case for fulfilled prophecies.

It bothers me that you use the books written after the Epistles of Paul to justify something Paul said. I have no doubt that the 4 gospels intentionally stated that Jesus rose physically from the dead. I have my doubts that Paul ever intended that. I think that the further along in time we go the more absurd the claims about Yeshua gets.

Paul said that he met with the original disciples, Monk, and during those meetings, they weren't exactly playing beer pong. They were comparing notes, and Paul said that he passed to the Gentiles what he "received" from the disciples (1 Corin 15:3-7). So if you don't doubt that the 4 Gospels stated that Jesus rose from the dead, then you shouldn't have doubt that the same Resurrection that the disciples preached, Paul also preached. Cmon now.

I think there is room for doubt. I think that if it was that important then Paul would have mentioned it. I think what you are bringing up here is just backtracking and copouts.

You just said it yourself; "I think if it was that important then Paul would have mentioned it".....well, since he didn't mention it, then apparently it wasn't that important.

And far from backtracking and coping out...even in school today we are taught that when someone rights something, that which is written is to a specific audience and for a specific purpose, and the writing is supposed to reflect the audience and the purpose. This is grade school stuff here. Paul's purpose was not to give a biography of Jesus..he wrote for a different purpose...as it was assumed that everyone knew about the exploits of Jesus, the problem would come when you have people misinterpreting the message, or false leaders, and Paul was addressing those issues.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Paul said that he met with the original disciples, Monk, and during those meetings, they weren't exactly playing beer pong. They were comparing notes, and Paul said that he passed to the Gentiles what he "received" from the disciples (1 Corin 15:3-7).

So Paul was lying in Galatians 1:12:

I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

[Desert Snake]

So Paul was lying in Galatians 1:12:

I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

Well, yeah, if you're going to go by the Pauline gospels you have to believe that, I think.
(believe the divine inspiration of the Pauline writings.)

 

[cottage]

You started a thread based on the MOA? I wasn't aware of that. I will see you there once the heat from this subject begin to cool off.

Now come on! The thread was posted on the 7th of April, shortly after you agreed to take part in it. I can’t believe you failed to notice the thread because it was prominent for well over a week and had 102 responses and 1289 views.

I have a hair pick that I use to pick my beard..is my hair pick "alive"?

No of course it isn’t, but nor is it something known as ‘non-life’. Don’t be so simplistically literal!

Got to stop you there. You have to explain the expansion, cot. If there was nothing outside the singularity, then the cause of the expansion would have to exist internally within the singularity, which seems absurd because the question would then become "Why did the singularity begin to expand when it did"? Why not later, or sooner? What at that exact time as opposed to other times?

What do you mean ‘when it did’? There was no ‘later’, ‘sooner, or ‘other times’ for time only began with the Big Bang!

There is just no answer to this at all. Second, that would presuppose that the singularity was just sitting there (wherever "there" is) for eternity, waiting to expand for whatever reason.

What, you mean like God, waiting to create the world? There is no ‘waiting’ in either respect.

I disagree with P2. I'd like you to define "event" and please explain how does this not apply to a universe that began to expand.

An ‘event’ is an occurrence or an outcome such as the rapid expansion of matter (the Big Bang). But the Big bang isn’t the universe but is relative to the universe if it is eternal and the cause of all events as per the argument I gave.

We can re-write the argument thus:

1. All events have a beginning

2. The Big Bang was an event

Conclusion: The Big Bang had a beginning

The conclusion isn’t disputed. It doesn’t follow that from the BB having a beginning that the universe itself had a beginning.

Let me correct you there, it doesn't prove the existence of God, in general. It proves the existence of WHICH GOD, specifically. The other theistic arguments make a general case for a supernatural Creator. The argument for the Resurrection makes a case for which God exists, namely, the Judeo-Christian God, which is why the Resurrection argument is important for Christians.

I do understand that, but whichever god it still begs the question to begin with a probable God.

I will admit it, I can't speak for anyone else, but this is the single most difficult challenge for me. I think ultimately, the question deals primarily with benevolence. For example, you say "...one who is sufficient and complete in all possible things, as being affected or emotionally troubled..."

But at the same time though, does being sufficient and complete mean that you don't care? Or if you care, does that mean that you aren't sufficient and complete? I will have to think more on this.

Okay, I won’t push you on this question.

You were the one that brought up the kalam.

Yes but only in response to your deviation from arguing for ‘life from non-life’ instead of arguing the case for the Resurrection, which is about testimony and circumstantial evidence and not metaphysics.

But we are talking about the Resurrection, at which belief in God IS the inference.

Of course the object is to confirm what is believed, but the inference is supposed to be derived from the circumstantial evidence and testimony and not from the prior faith.

Wait a minute, all historical claims are based primarily in some type of writings...so in that case you shouldn't believe in anything that preceded photo, video, or audio recordings.

What nonsense is this? Of course documents are studied for their historical knowledge. But the Bible is a mixture of contemporary writings and mythology that supposes miracles and supernatural beings, none of which is accepted as factual, except among believers in the Christian doctrine.

Second, if you wouldn't believe even if there were recorded accounts of the subject at hand, then it seems rather pointless to debate it with you (although, fun nevertheless). And I mean that with all due respect lol. You are making a big fuss about this particular subject, yet if it had what you claim it doesn't currently have, you STILL wouldn't believe it. I find that hilarious LMAO.

Yes, that’s a fair summary of my view of the matter. Basically I’m saying it’s a flawed account within a flawed ancient tome.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So Paul was lying in Galatians 1:12:

I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

Regardless of who Paul received it from..the whole point was the objection that was raised when Monk made it seem as if what Paul preached about the Resurrection was different than what the disciples taught about it..my point was, if he met with the disciples, specifically Peter for 15 days as he stated (Gal 1:18), then it would seem rather dubious not to think that their central message regarding the Resurrection would be different.

Second, what Paul was talking about what he "received" in 1 Corin 15:3-7 was not the message in general, but the CREED, as biblical scholars recognize the format of verses 3-7 is in the format of a creed. The significance about creed formats is just that, it is a FORMAT that is easily rememebered and therefore easily passed down from generation to generation without the central message losing its steam as it is passed along.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Now come on! The thread was posted on the 7th of April, shortly after you agreed to take part in it. I can’t believe you failed to notice the thread because it was prominent for well over a week and had 102 responses and 1289 views.

I can't take notice if I wasn't looking

No of course it isn’t, but nor is it something known as ‘non-life’. Don’t be so simplistically literal!

What? It is either alive, or not alive. The pick is a non-living material object...and it is just that simple lol, you are the one complicating things.

What do you mean ‘when it did’? There was no ‘later’, ‘sooner, or ‘other times’ for time only began with the Big Bang!

Ok, scratch the temporal terminology...how about this...WHY did it expand? There has to be a reason why it expanded, and that answer cannot transcend the singularity (since there was nothing outside it), nor can it be within the singularity. So why?

What, you mean like God, waiting to create the world? There is no ‘waiting’ in either respect.

On the Christian view, God was timeless, and the only reason the world began 13.7 billion years ago is because God had an eternal will to create it when he did. If you take free will out of the equation, then there is no explanatory reason why the universe would suddenly begin to expand if there were no pre-deterministic cause as to why. It just expanded for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which strikes me as absurd, because everything that "happens", happens for a reason, and on your view, not only is there no reason, but there CAN'T be a reason.

An ‘event’ is an occurrence or an outcome such as the rapid expansion of matter (the Big Bang). But the Big bang isn’t the universe but is relative to the universe if it is eternal and the cause of all events as per the argument I gave.

We can re-write the argument thus:

1. All events have a beginning

2. The Big Bang was an event

Conclusion: The Big Bang had a beginning

The conclusion isn’t disputed. It doesn’t follow that from the BB having a beginning that the universe itself had a beginning.

So if the BB didn't have a beginning, would the universe exist? Yes or no?

I do understand that, but whichever god it still begs the question to begin with a probable God.

Which is why the arguments for a Supreme Being are independent of the argument for the Judeo-Christian God. Only a being that is not dependent upon natural law for its existence could rise from the dead...and I believe we have reasons to believe such a being exists, which would make the historicity of the Resurrection more probable.

Okay, I won’t push you on this question.

I want to discuss it with you, though...because, if a being is sufficient in all things, does that mean such a being shouldn't "care" about anything? Does caring contradict maximal sufficiency?

Yes but only in response to your deviation from arguing for ‘life from non-life’ instead of arguing the case for the Resurrection, which is about testimony and circumstantial evidence and not metaphysics.

I forgot why I mentioned that, but if I did, something led me to it

Of course the object is to confirm what is believed, but the inference is supposed to be derived from the circumstantial evidence and testimony and not from the prior faith.

But it isn't primarily on faith though.

What nonsense is this? Of course documents are studied for their historical knowledge. But the Bible is a mixture of contemporary writings and mythology that supposes miracles and supernatural beings, none of which is accepted as factual, except among believers in the Christian doctrine.

Oh ok, that is why I mentioned the whole "life from non-life" thing. There is a double standard here...on one hand you say that none of the supernatural claims by believers of any religion is factual, or accepted as factual by anyone except believers.

And my response to that is there are things like macroevolution and abiogenesis, things that are accepted by the faith of those that believe it, yet these things have not been proven to be factual...and these things ARE considered to be natural occurrences, despite the fact that it hasn't been prove by science and those that believe it to be true are believing by faith.

Believers are not the only one playing the faith game. Believers are not even the only ones that have a "book" that they hold too. Naturalists hold on to books too, and those books are any scientific book that they hope will corroborate their claims.

Yes, that’s a fair summary of my view of the matter. Basically I’m saying it’s a flawed account within a flawed ancient tome.

Fair enough lol.

 

[cottage]

I can't take notice if I wasn't looking

You saw the thread.

What? It is either alive, or not alive. The pick is a non-living material object...and it is just that simple lol, you are the one complicating things.

There is life or there is not. I’ll repeat what I said, if I may: There is no such entity as ‘non-life’. Life cannot come from non-life any more than something can come from nothing. But something can exist where before there was nothing. There is no contradiction in a thing coming into existence uncaused.

Ok, scratch the temporal terminology...how about this...WHY did it expand? There has to be a reason why it expanded, and that answer cannot transcend the singularity (since there was nothing outside it), nor can it be within the singularity. So why?

Because it is in its nature to do so? Now see the next paragraph.

On the Christian view, God was timeless, and the only reason the world began 13.7 billion years ago is because God had an eternal will to create it when he did. If you take free will out of the equation, then there is no explanatory reason why the universe would suddenly begin to expand if there were no pre-deterministic cause as to why. It just expanded for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which strikes me as absurd, because everything that "happens", happens for a reason, and on your view, not only is there no reason, but there CAN'T be a reason.

That’s quite wrong, and the very opposite is true in your case. Neither God nor an eternal universe needs a reason to explain itself, since by definition there is nothing external to either. But if God, a personal, conscious being, freely brought the world into being then he must have a reason or purpose for doing so; and whatever reason is given necessarily runs to a contradiction. No such constraint is imposed on material substance.

So if the BB didn't have a beginning, would the universe exist? Yes or no?

Yes, of course, if it’s eternal; and the same as applies to God.

Which is why the arguments for a Supreme Being are independent of the argument for the Judeo-Christian God. Only a being that is not dependent upon natural law for its existence could rise from the dead...and I believe we have reasons to believe such a being exists, which would make the historicity of the Resurrection more probable.

But question-begging the answer before the truth concerning the event in question is established is to prejudice the outcome. Not a proper argument.

I want to discuss it with you, though...because, if a being is sufficient in all things, does that mean such a being shouldn't "care" about anything? Does caring contradict maximal sufficiency?

Yes, it certainly does! If God is the Supreme Being, omnipotent, omniscient and all sufficient, then he has no reason for creating inferior beings to glorify him and nor can he gain or profit in any way whatsoever in seeking a relationship with his creation, created beings that he caused to suffer. By definition suffering only exists because God permits it to exist, therefore it is a demonstrable contradiction to speak of an all sufficient being having emotions.

Oh ok, that is why I mentioned the whole "life from non-life" thing. There is a double standard here...on one hand you say that none of the supernatural claims by believers of any religion is factual, or accepted as factual by anyone except believers.

And my response to that is there are things like macroevolution and abiogenesis, things that are accepted by the faith of those that believe it, yet these things have not been proven to be factual...and these things ARE considered to be natural occurrences, despite the fact that it hasn't been prove by science and those that believe it to be true are believing by faith.

Believers are not the only one playing the faith game. Believers are not even the only ones that have a "book" that they hold too. Naturalists hold on to books too, and those books are any scientific book that they hope will corroborate their claims.

That shows a complete misunderstanding of the way scientific hypotheses are applied. All of those things you mention are attempts to explain evolution by hypothetical natural processes, but which can never be true in anything more than in a probable sense, and are open to the next argument or theory that proves them false, erroneous, or incomplete. Also there is no doctrine that refuses to allow anything to count against scientific hypotheses or theory, unlike religion, and even if there were it still wouldn’t be able to prevent other scientists from coming up with competing hypotheses or theories. Science is based on enquiry; religion is based on dogma.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You saw the thread.

Did I reply? I don't recall.

There is life or there is not. I’ll repeat what I said, if I may: There is no such entity as ‘non-life’.

Never said there was a such entity as "non-life".

Life cannot come from non-life any more than something can come from nothing.

Life began.

But something can exist where before there was nothing.

Nonsense.

There is no contradiction in a thing coming into existence uncaused.

Things like what?

Because it is in its nature to do so?

That answer is inadequate. If we can imagine a rock that is resting on pavement, and the rock and pavement are the ONLY things that exists in reality...under this circumstance, there is no reason for the rock to EVER begin to move, since there is nothing outside it to make it move, nor is there anything within it to make it move...and if you propose there to be something within it to make it move, then there is no reason as to why it would begin to move at that particular point and not another point. The same thing with the "universe" or "big bang" or whatever you want to call it (as that it is still unclear).

That’s quite wrong, and the very opposite is true in your case. Neither God nor an eternal universe needs a reason to explain itself, since by definition there is nothing external to either.

Everything has an external reason for its existence, or it exists due to the necessity of its own nature. I think I've just demonstrated why the universe couldn't have existed due to the necessity of its own nature.

But if God, a personal, conscious being, freely brought the world into being then he must have a reason or purpose for doing so; and whatever reason is given necessarily runs to a contradiction. No such constraint is imposed on material substance.

I don't know about that though, because that would mean that a omni-sufficient being would literally not be able to do anything…for any act you could say “well, if X is omini-sufficient, he wouldn’t have wanted/needed to do Y”.

Yes, of course, if it’s eternal; and the same as applies to God.

But it isn’t. You can’t explain why something with no free will could begin to do something if there were no pre-deterministic/pre-conditions that existed externally or within it.

But question-begging the answer before the truth concerning the event in question is established is to prejudice the outcome. Not a proper argument.

The argument is two-fold…as Christians believe that the origin of the disciples belief is best explained by the Resurrection being true…and if you take that along with the arguments which support a being that exist which is CAPABLE of pulling off a Resurrection, the case is made. So it isn’t question begging, we believe based on evidence that we think is sufficient, and then draw the conclusion based on this inference.

Yes, it certainly does! If God is the Supreme Being, omnipotent, omniscient and all sufficient, then he has no reason for creating inferior beings to glorify him and nor can he gain or profit in any way whatsoever in seeking a relationship with his creation, created beings that he caused to suffer. By definition suffering only exists because God permits it to exist, therefore it is a demonstrable contradiction to speak of an all sufficient being having emotions.

And as I said before, he doesn’t stop with just emotions, for ANY given act that a omni-sufficient being makes, one can ask, “Well, if he is sufficient, why did he do X, Y, Z..” Something doesn’t seem right about that.

That shows a complete misunderstanding of the way scientific hypotheses are applied. All of those things you mention are attempts to explain evolution by hypothetical natural processes, but which can never be true in anything more than in a probable sense, and are open to the next argument or theory that proves them false, erroneous, or incomplete. Also there is no doctrine that refuses to allow anything to count against scientific hypotheses or theory, unlike religion, and even if there were it still wouldn’t be able to prevent other scientists from coming up with competing hypotheses or theories. Science is based on enquiry; religion is based on dogma.

Except for the fact that some naturalists claim that since they believe that life/universe all originated or “came together” naturally, then intelligent design is not needed, and some are not open to the “next argument or theory that proves them false”, at least if the next argument or theory is theological rather than scientific.

And my point is simply neither abiogenesis or macroevolution has never been proven true with science, so it should be a scientific “given” as some would like it to be. That is just wishful thinking and takes just as much faith as religion does.

 

[viole]

My point exactly. So use that same line of reasoning and apply it to the event of your birth...if there was an infinite number of births which preceded it, the event of your birth would never be reached.

I wonder why. Until recently (a few decades), all scientists believed that the universe was eternal. That does not seem to have created major discomfort.

I am not sure whether you are more concerned by the infinity of time or the infinity of events. The two things do not necessarily come together.

Suppose that X is the result of an infinite chain of events that took one year to unfold. Surely we can easily traverse one year.

What logical problem do you see in that, otherwise?

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

I wonder why. Until recently (a few decades), all scientists believed that the universe was eternal. That does not seem to have created major discomfort.

I am not sure whether you are more concerned by the infinity of time or the infinity of events. The two things do not necessarily come together.

Suppose that X is the result of an infinite chain of events that took one year to unfold. Surely we can easily traverse one year.

What logical problem do you see in that, otherwise?

Ciao

- viole

Maybe the key is in taking the differences between two infinite events... works elsewhere!

event 1 happens at x+1
event 2 happens at x+2

x may be infinite, but happens to be the exact same interval of time, so when you subtract them you get a unit of 1 time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I wonder why. Until recently (a few decades), all scientists believed that the universe was eternal. That does not seem to have created major discomfort.

Exactly, and coincidently contemporary cosmology just HAPPEN to confirmed what Genesis 1:1 has been stating for thousands of years...that the universe began to exist.

You know what I find amazing, and it just occured to me that unbelievers always say how theists, years ago before Newton, always contributed acts of nature that they couldn't explain to "goddidit", just so science can "prove them wrong" years later with the latests scientific discoveries, right?

Now all of a sudden, science has confirmed what the theists have been maintaining all alone, that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.....Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.."

I am not sure whether you are more concerned by the infinity of time or the infinity of events. The two things do not necessarily come together.

The good thing about the argument against infinity is, it applies to ANYTHING...even God...and the only reason why I use the "event" aspect of things is because people suddenly become "philsophers of time" when it comes to the subject of time...so in order to keep things simple I say...."Ok, take whatever view of time you want...I will use events in time, and the argument is no less absurd than it would be had I used the concept of time".

Suppose that X is the result of an infinite chain of events that took one year to unfold. Surely we can easily traverse one year.

What logical problem do you see in that, otherwise?

If X was the beginning point of the chain of events, then once the year is traversed, there would be a finite amount of events within the year.

If X was one point within the infinite chain, then event X would never come to past, neither would the year.

 

[idav]

Exactly, and coincidently contemporary cosmology just HAPPEN to confirmed what Genesis 1:1 has been stating for thousands of years...that the universe began to exist.

Genesis says no such thing.

Now all of a sudden, science has confirmed what the theists have been maintaining all alone, that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.....Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.."

Eastern spiritualist claim the same confirmations. Weird how everyone knows more than science even though we are just figuring the stuff out.

And science confirms no such thing. Nobody has a source to explain where a singularity comes from. The singularity is the closest to the answer we get and on top of that law of conservation says none of the stuff can have been created, unless the singularity is a state in which creation can happen which would go along lines of multiverse theory.

The good thing about the argument against infinity is, it applies to ANYTHING...even God...and the only reason why I use the "event" aspect of things is because people suddenly become "philsophers of time" when it comes to the subject of time...so in order to keep things simple I say...."Ok, take whatever view of time you want...I will use events in time, and the argument is no less absurd than it would be had I used the concept of time".

Science already shows the quantum world is timeless, we don't need god for that.

 

[idav]

That answer is inadequate. If we can imagine a rock that is resting on pavement, and the rock and pavement are the ONLY things that exists in reality...under this circumstance, there is no reason for the rock to EVER begin to move, since there is nothing outside it to make it move, nor is there anything within it to make it move...and if you propose there to be something within it to make it move, then there is no reason as to why it would begin to move at that particular point and not another point. The same thing with the "universe" or "big bang" or whatever you want to call it (as that it is still unclear).

That is the same problem your concept of god has when he is supposed to be timeless or whatever, atemporal. You propose that God came about in a creating mode but why and how would a atemporal being just be in a changing mode. Same thing with the universe coming about by natural means. Any "natural" means would have came about in "creation" mode so to speak, there is no other way.

 

[viole]

Exactly, and coincidently contemporary cosmology just HAPPEN to confirmed what Genesis 1:1 has been stating for thousands of years...that the universe began to exist.

You know what I find amazing, and it just occured to me that unbelievers always say how theists, years ago before Newton, always contributed acts of nature that they couldn't explain to "goddidit", just so science can "prove them wrong" years later with the latests scientific discoveries, right?

Now all of a sudden, science has confirmed what the theists have been maintaining all alone, that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.....Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.."

Yes, the same scientists who confirm that the Universe "started" 13.7 billions years ago, plus change. And the same scientists who confirm that we are related with fungi and we all come from tiny specks of reproducing material.

It is refreshing to hear that you find the scientific method a reliable way to find truths.

But this is confusing. If the scientific method concludes that we all come from unconscious entities (unless you think that prokaryotic cells are conscious) and you find absurd to believe that consciousness can come from unconsciousness, how can you rely on science when it confirms Genesis?

If X was the beginning point of the chain of events, then once the year is traversed, there would be a finite amount of events within the year.

If X was one point within the infinite chain, then event X would never come to past, neither would the year.

Well, this is not what I said. X is the RESULT (not the beginning) of a chain of events that is fully contained within one year.

Anyway, I wonder how you came to the conclusion that once the year is traversed there would be only a finite amounts of events in it. It is perfectly possible to have an infinite chain of events that takes one year to unfold.

You seem to believe that a finite amount of time can only contain a finite amount of events.

Can you explain why?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Maybe the key is in taking the differences between two infinite events... works elsewhere!

event 1 happens at x+1
event 2 happens at x+2

x may be infinite, but happens to be the exact same interval of time, so when you subtract them you get a unit of 1 time.

Well, in set theory that is not only possible, but obviously well defined. And set theory is the foundation of mathematics.

If the two sets contain a large portion of common elements (events) except one, then their difference (the union minus the intersection) contains one well defined element.

There is absolutely not problem in computing things like this, even if the common portion contains infinite elements.

Ciao

- viole