Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Monk Of Reason]

We have verifiable evidence from solid sources, Monk.

No you do not. You have no more evidence than Islam, Hinduism or any other religion. You have people who claimed that these things happened. But as you said "anyone can say anything" right? What about christ claims make them more verifiable than any other claim? Be objective now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No you do not. You have no more evidence than Islam, Hinduism or any other religion. You have people who claimed that these things happened. But as you said "anyone can say anything" right? What about christ claims make them more verifiable than any other claim? Be objective now.

Islamic claims about Jesus are historically false...and if you can't even get the Jesus part right, your credibility as the one true religion should be questioned...and until I can get a clear explanation on which god Hindu's believe in, I don't even consider them.

 

[idav]

Islamic claims about Jesus are historically false...and if you can't even get the Jesus part right, your credibility as the one true religion should be questioned...and until I can get a clear explanation on which god Hindu's believe in, I don't even consider them.

There is as much reason to believe a resurrection or that jesus lived a longer life. Because we know little to nothing of his life or death. Claim of living 1000 years is just that, just a claim. Writing that a bunch of people saw it should show up in more historical accounts than just its own mythology.

 

[George-ananda]

...and until I can get a clear explanation on which god Hindu's believe in, I don't even consider them.

There is only One. A quote from the scriptures:

The thousand gods are just My thousand faces

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Islamic claims about Jesus are historically false...and if you can't even get the Jesus part right, your credibility as the one true religion should be questioned...and until I can get a clear explanation on which god Hindu's believe in, I don't even consider them.

As opposed to tales of a global flood and a (friendly) zombie invasion of Jerusalem. If you get those wrong, your credibility can survive... right?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Islamic claims about Jesus are historically false...and if you can't even get the Jesus part right, your credibility as the one true religion should be questioned...and until I can get a clear explanation on which god Hindu's believe in, I don't even consider them.

What facts did they get wrong about Jesus that Christianity got correct via verified sources?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As opposed to tales of a global flood and a (friendly) zombie invasion of Jerusalem. If you get those wrong, your credibility can survive... right?

You are attacking the claims instead of addressing the evidence for the claims...hold tight, I am about to start a thread on this subject. See you there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What facts did they get wrong about Jesus that Christianity got correct via verified sources?

The belief of Jesus' Resurrection and appearances was held shortly after Jesus' death, as was his death via crucifixion...we have both internal and external sources which state this....so for Islam to come hundreds of years later and state that Jesus was neither crucified nor appeared to his disciples post mortem is to ignore the historical evidence that states otherwise.

Plus, Islamic teachings about Jesus' Deity contradicts what Jesus' followers claimed that he said and did.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The belief of Jesus' Resurrection and appearances was held shortly after Jesus' death, as was his death via crucifixion...we have both internal and external sources which state this....so for Islam to come hundreds of years later and state that Jesus was neither crucified nor appeared to his disciples post mortem is to ignore the historical evidence that states otherwise.

Plus, Islamic teachings about Jesus' Deity contradicts what Jesus' followers claimed that he said and did.

I get the strong feeling you don't actually know what Islam says about Jesus. Because that isn't what they say. They believe that god made Judas to look like Jesus and was scarified in his place. Not that such an event never ever happened.


Secondly THERE IS NO THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE OF A RESURRECTION OF JESUS! THAT IS NOT HISTORICAL FACT!

Followers of Jesus have claimed this. But hey in your words "Anyone can say anything".
Without extra evidence to back it up there is nothing to say that the Islamic account isn't the correct one and the Christian account is wrong.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I get the strong feeling you don't actually know what Islam says about Jesus. Because that isn't what they say. They believe that god made Judas to look like Jesus and was scarified in his place. Not that such an event never ever happened.

What are you talking about?

I said "so for Islam to come hundreds of years later and state that Jesus was neither crucified nor appeared to his disciples post mortem is to ignore the historical evidence that states otherwise."

And above you say "They believe that god made Judas to look like Jesus and was scarified in his place. Not that such an event never ever happened."

If God made Judas to look like Jesus and Judas was sacrificed in his place, then that would mean that "JESUS WAS NEITHER CRUCIFIED NOR APPEARED TO HIS DISCIPLES POST MORTEM", which is EXACTLY what I just said.

Reading comprehension is important, people.

Secondly THERE IS NO THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE OF A RESURRECTION OF JESUS! THAT IS NOT HISTORICAL FACT!

Hmm, lets see.

1. Jesus testified to it
2. Peter testified to it
3. Paul testified to it

That is three....making Paul the third-party source that testified to the Resurrected Jesus.

Keep trying, Monk.

Followers of Jesus have claimed this. But hey in your words "Anyone can say anything".

It is the claims + background information that other religions lack. I am slowly making my threads to support this.

Without extra evidence to back it up there is nothing to say that the Islamic account isn't the correct one and the Christian account is wrong.

Islam is to far removed from the origin of Christianity to tell us anything about Christianity. The sources we have for Christianity are all within 5-40 years after the cross, by either the disciples or friends of the disciples.

Night and day difference.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What are you talking about?

I said "so for Islam to come hundreds of years later and state that Jesus was neither crucified nor appeared to his disciples post mortem is to ignore the historical evidence that states otherwise."

And above you say "They believe that god made Judas to look like Jesus and was scarified in his place. Not that such an event never ever happened."

If God made Judas to look like Jesus and Judas was sacrificed in his place, then that would mean that "JESUS WAS NEITHER CRUCIFIED NOR APPEARED TO HIS DISCIPLES POST MORTEM", which is EXACTLY what I just said.

Reading comprehension is important, people.

If Jesus was crucified. Lets work on the assumption that the historical Jesus was real. Neither claim that he was resurrected or the claim that he was saved and someone died in his place have any actual merit. Neither are verified historically and both are simply religious claims made by their followers. My reading comprehension is fine. Your critical thinking could use some work.

Hmm, lets see.

1. Jesus testified to it
2. Peter testified to it
3. Paul testified to it

That is three....making Paul the third-party source that testified to the Resurrected Jesus.

Keep trying, Monk.

None of them are third party sources. You can't use the bible to prove the bible. That is circular logic What part of that do you not understand? Muhammad claimed it, Zeus claimed it, Buddha claimed it. All the same.

It is the claims + background information that other religions lack. I am slowly making my threads to support this.

So far I haven't seen evidence to tie it together. If your getting there I'll wait but I won't hold my breath.

Islam is to far removed from the origin of Christianity to tell us anything about Christianity. The sources we have for Christianity are all within 5-40 years after the cross, by either the disciples or friends of the disciples.

Night and day difference.

They have equal merit in determining what happened because they are religiously motivated rather than from factual sources. Both are equally considered non-historical in nature.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If Jesus was crucified. Lets work on the assumption that the historical Jesus was real. Neither claim that he was resurrected or the claim that he was saved and someone died in his place have any actual merit.

Why do we have to work on an assumption when it comes to Jesus, but every other historical figure is cool to just go right ahead and accept? Typical double standard crap. Jesus was crucified, there is no historical doubt about that...and to continue not accepting that as historical is basically a double standard...as we are not talking theological stuff, we are talking about whether a man was crucified or not, which is a religiously-neutral statement...and to accept that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death, and not accept that Jesus was crucified is...quite disingenuous.

None of them are third party sources. You can't use the bible to prove the bible. That is circular logic What part of that do you not understand? Muhammad claimed it, Zeus claimed it, Buddha claimed it. All the same.

Again, as I said before, anyone can claim anything...the question is; what reasons do we have to believe the claim?? Either the claim is true, or it is false...and when it comes to the background evidence, the Resurrection is the best explanation based on the background evidence we have on the event, in my opinion.

So far I haven't seen evidence to tie it together. If your getting there I'll wait but I won't hold my breath.

Hold your breath, and count to infinity

They have equal merit in determining what happened because they are religiously motivated rather than from factual sources. Both are equally considered non-historical in nature.

I will touch on all of that nonsense later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are attacking the claims instead of addressing the evidence for the claims...hold tight, I am about to start a thread on this subject. See you there.

Oh... so you have evidence that zombies rose from the dead, walked into Jerusalem, and talked with the people? I'm all ears.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

If our "reality" is just an illusion or "dream", perhaps Jesus was a 'Master of the Art of Dream Manipulation', seemingly bending the laws of physics at will to produce his 37 'miracles'?

"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream"- Edgar Allen Poe
"You can be in my dream if i can be in your dream" -Bob Dylan
"We are such stuff as dreams are made on" -The Tempest
"Strawberry Fields...nothing is real" - The Beatles
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one'' -Einstein
"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes" - Bible,James 4:14
"Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"- Morpheus in The Matrix

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why do we have to work on an assumption when it comes to Jesus, but every other historical figure is cool to just go right ahead and accept? Typical double standard crap. Jesus was crucified, there is no historical doubt about that...and to continue not accepting that as historical is basically a double standard...as we are not talking theological stuff, we are talking about whether a man was crucified or not, which is a religiously-neutral statement...and to accept that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death, and not accept that Jesus was crucified is...quite disingenuous.

Strawman. I can accept historical facts but it doesn't mean I have to eat the religious nonsense with it. There is no historical evidence he rose from the grave or preformed miracles. Try to stop arguing against something I'm not saying.

Again, as I said before, anyone can claim anything...the question is; what reasons do we have to believe the claim?? Either the claim is true, or it is false...and when it comes to the background evidence, the Resurrection is the best explanation based on the background evidence we have on the event, in my opinion.

Actually its not the most rational answer. The most rational answer is that he was a martyr of a political or religious ideology that gained him the target of the current religiously run government.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh... so you have evidence that zombies rose from the dead, walked into Jerusalem, and talked with the people? I'm all ears.

For those that do take Matthew 27 literally, they take it literally under the premise that God exists, and if God exists, and he allowed dead people to come back to life, then that is his prerogative.

If God exist then resurrections are neither improbable or implausible. If God doesn't exist, then I would be just as skeptical as you are.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Strawman. I can accept historical facts but it doesn't mean I have to eat the religious nonsense with it.

Again, at this particular point in the discussion we are talking about Jesus' crucifixion, which has nothing to do with religion, it is simply saying that a man was put to death, thats it.

There is no historical evidence he rose from the grave or preformed miracles. Try to stop arguing against something I'm not saying.

I haven't even touched on that yet, but you can continue to keep bringing it up.

Actually its not the most rational answer. The most rational answer is that he was a martyr of a political or religious ideology that gained him the target of the current religiously run government.

Which has nothing to do with the background information such as the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, or the origin of the disicples beliefs. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Again, at this particular point in the discussion we are talking about Jesus' crucifixion, which has nothing to do with religion, it is simply saying that a man was put to death, thats it.

Then so far we in agreement.

I haven't even touched on that yet, but you can continue to keep bringing it up.

Because it is integral to your point that sometime you apparently will make.

Which has nothing to do with the background information such as the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, or the origin of the disicples beliefs. Absolutely nothing.

Origin of the disciples belief is irrelevant for historical claims. It is non-verifiable and there is no reason to assume it is because of actual miracles.
Secondly there is no historical evidence of an empty tomb or post-mortem appearances. The only historical test with the last inclusion was proven to have been tampered with as you so accurately depicted in your op.

But apparently I need to wait for you to tie everything together with your next big post. So if there is nothing more to discuss till then don't respond and just make your second post.

 

[Sapiens]

I have no clue what you are talking about here.



Historical evidence that the disciples claimed they saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ, which they sincerly believed, and this belief is best explained by the the truth value of the claims.

Truth value?

Why do we have to work on an assumption when it comes to Jesus, but every other historical figure is cool to just go right ahead and accept? Typical double standard crap. Jesus was crucified, there is no historical doubt about that...and to continue not accepting that as historical is basically a double standard...as we are not talking theological stuff, we are talking about whether a man was crucified or not, which is a religiously-neutral statement...and to accept that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death, and not accept that Jesus was crucified is...quite disingenuous.

There is really good contemporaneous documentation of Caesar and this life and his death. There is none when it comes to Christ. No double standards, same standard applied to each of them, one is support the other is absent.

Again, as I said before, anyone can claim anything...the question is; what reasons do we have to believe the claim?? Either the claim is true, or it is false...and when it comes to the background evidence, the Resurrection is the best explanation based on the background evidence we have on the event, in my opinion.

Resurrection is a concept from out of the blue, outside of nature, it has never occurred, and never will, even if we are willing to grant the possibility in this one case ... it is hardly the "best explanation" and falls in the realm (literally) of deus ex machina.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because it is integral to your point that sometime you apparently will make.

Yup..sometime. But see, first we have to get the b.s out of the way, which is exactly why I will let my part 1 sit there for a little bit...so that the crap that you were (and are currently) bringing forth now will be already out of the way as we move right along.

Origin of the disciples belief is irrelevant for historical claims. It is non-verifiable and there is no reason to assume it is because of actual miracles.

It is all relevant, you just don't see it yet.

Secondly there is no historical evidence of an empty tomb or post-mortem appearances. The only historical test with the last inclusion was proven to have been tampered with as you so accurately depicted in your op.

There is historical evidence.

But apparently I need to wait for you to tie everything together with your next big post. So if there is nothing more to discuss till then don't respond and just make your second post.

LOL