Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[idav]

I think dark matter (the majority of the universe) is more what I was talking about than higgs boson

What does dark matter have to do with it, does it have a different source from regular matter? Is it not still matter? The very essence of what dark matter is, BTW which we can detect, means your hiding stuff in the gaps, that's god of gaps.

 

[idav]

We have historical evidence that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose from the dead three days later. If that isn't a miracle, then I don't know what is.

Gospels are supposed to be eye witness accounts, they are written that way, but I highly doubt it. Also there is the issue that favoritism was placed on which scripts were copied and preserved which doesn't help matters. The inconsistency of said eye witness accounts is another big problem.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I personally am influenced by modern gurus/teachers; two in particular. If any of my debating partners want to go out of their comfort zone, read the 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by Prahmahansa Yogananda. Steve Jobs made sure he read this once a year to keep grounded.

Thanks for the referral, but I have a list of unread books many miles long already.

 

[Ingledsva]

We have historical evidence that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose from the dead three days later. If that isn't a miracle, then I don't know what is.

There is no actual evidence of this event.


Just a book saying it happened.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

We are talking here of the authors of the Vedas (the scriptures of India/Hinduism) that have been around for ages and form the underpinnings of one of the great philosophies of the world. The adherents include some of the great minds of science too.

I personally am influenced by modern gurus/teachers; two in particular. If any of my debating partners want to go out of their comfort zone, read the 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by Prahmahansa Yogananda. Steve Jobs made sure he read this once a year to keep grounded.

I enjoyed reading that book. I still have it.



*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is no actual evidence of this event.
Just a book saying it happened.

Poor objection due to the fact that any so called "evidence" that you use to support a historical claim, the vast majority of these evidences were "written down" by someone. So the entire subject of history should be negated on your view.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Gospels are supposed to be eye witness accounts, they are written that way, but I highly doubt it.

Why?

Also there is the issue that favoritism was placed on which scripts were copied and preserved which doesn't help matters.

If by favoritism you mean certain scripts were carefully selected to be included as part of the HOLY BIBLE, then I guess it was favoritism.

The inconsistency of said eye witness accounts is another big problem.

Like what?

 

[Ingledsva]

There is no actual evidence of this event.
Just a book saying it happened.

Poor objection due to the fact that any so called "evidence" that you use to support a historical claim, the vast majority of these evidences were "written down" by someone. So the entire subject of history should be negated on your view.

I get so tired of people trying to use this as a rebuttal.


Actual history is dealing with historic events around normal people with multiple sources to back the claims, as well as on-the-ground archaeological evidence. Can some of the ideas around specific people, or events, be slightly off? Of course.

HOWEVER -


With religious claims we are dealing with invisible beings. And the religious books about people claiming to have seen the ascension of Flying Spaghetti Monster, are not actual proof of the invisible being.



*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have historical evidence that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose from the dead three days later. If that isn't a miracle, then I don't know what is.

What historical evidence?

Is the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus better than the evidence for, say, the claim that Muhammad rode to Heaven on a flying horse with the face of a woman?

 

[idav]

Why?



If by favoritism you mean certain scripts were carefully selected to be included as part of the HOLY BIBLE, then I guess it was favoritism.



Like what?

Because it is based on just stories and depending on shere volume of copies would be a fallacy.

By favoritism I n mean they made sure to get rid of opposing opinions whether it were the writings or the people who believed them. See again first reason.

Everything from genealogies to things said on the cross are different accounts. Just mashing them up doesnt make it accurate.

 

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by idav The inconsistency of said eye witness accounts is another big problem.
Like what?

There are simply too many to enumerate here, but Bart Ehrman has written a great little book on the subject called Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). He teaches classes on how to read and analyze the New Testament, which is his specialty. The first thing he tells students is that most people read the NT sequentially, which is how one expects it ought to be written. However, he has his students compare all four Gospels side-by-side and match up events and stories in one with those in the other. That's when the inconsistencies and contradictions begin to jump out at you. For example, not all of the four gospels in mention the crucifixion, and those that do give radically different accounts. They don't even agree on what day it happened. I believe John even had two cleansing of the Temple events.

If you read all four Gospels in parallel, you come up with very different stories and some irreconcilable differences. What has emerged, though, is a kind of composite of the Gospels that Ehrman considers yet a fifth account of the life of Jesus that is just different from the Gospel accounts. That is the popular one that is taught in most churches and that makes it into the popular media. His book is well worth reading for anyone who is seriously interested in a basic critical overview of what is in the NT.

 

[Copernicus]

Advanced masters that I have come to revere have observed the universe through their subtle bodies. Consciousness can perceive beyond the range of physical instruments.

Your beliefs that "consciousness can perceive beyond the range of physical instruments" and that your "advanced masters" are worthy of reverence are as good as the reasons you have given to support them.

It's observational science; Vedic Science.

You can call it that. I would call it "pseudoscience". Hindus are no different from other religions in the modern era, where the label "science" often gets invoked frequently and juxtaposed to religious concepts, as if some of the validation of science could rub off on them. The point is: it isn't science. It doesn't follow a scientific methodology.

This is in agreement with the Vedic model. Physical consciousness goes through the physical brain so altering the physical brain will alter physical consciousness.

We know of the consciousness that we experience. The idea of "vedic consciousness" is that there is an unchanging, eternal "self" that is independent of the "fleeting mind" (sometimes depicted as "deer-like"). You can certainly believe in whatever you want, but there is no reason other than personal credulity to treat it seriously. When the mind becomes "still" through meditation, there is stillactive physical activity inside the brain. It can be observed and measured with instruments. So the evidence we have suggests that all aspects of "consciousness" correlate with brain activity. There is no independent method of verifying what you might term "nonphysical consciousness". However, some folks are able to make a reasonable living from convincing others that there is some underlying truth to it.

It's not magic. If you are interested further you can look up Etheric Body on the internet. This body transfers energy and information from the higher planes to the physical. People can clairvoyantly see these bodies and their energy auras.

Come on, George. This is not the first time I've heard this stuff. The "Etheric body" woo goes back to the 19th and early 20th centuries. It made a lot more sense back when we knew a lot less about the relationship between consciousness and brains. The question here is not whether you take it seriously, but why anyone else should take it seriously.

Again, physical consciousness must go through the physical brain. Trauma can cause loss of physical consciousness.

Yet a conscious brain--one manifesting active brain activity--seems to be necessary to "detect" the other imagined type of consciousness.

You are correct in that it is not currently testable by Science with its current technology. Science can not now address the issue. But I, in forming my personal beliefs, can intelligently consider all evidence. I believe the many masters of the Vedic tradition present the most reasonable theory I've heard.

The problem is not one of science not being ready to test it. There has to be a falsifiable hypothesis to test, and that is what is lacking. Science is ready whenever "Vedic science" is ready to produce a hypothesis that can be tested. It is "Vedic science" that seems to lack readiness to be tested.

Can these subtle planes contain dark matter? Just throwing that out there.

I'm afraid that you'll have to tell us. AFAICT, your "subtle planes" do not even exist.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There are simply too many to enumerate here, but Bart Ehrman has written a great little book on the subject called Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). He teaches classes on how to read and analyze the New Testament, which is his specialty. The first thing he tells students is that most people read the NT sequentially, which is how one expects it ought to be written. However, he has his students compare all four Gospels side-by-side and match up events and stories in one with those in the other. That's when the inconsistencies and contradictions begin to jump out at you. For example, not all of the four gospels in mention the crucifixion, and those that do give radically different accounts. They don't even agree on what day it happened. I believe John even had two cleansing of the Temple events.

If you read all four Gospels in parallel, you come up with very different stories and some irreconcilable differences. What has emerged, though, is a kind of composite of the Gospels that Ehrman considers yet a fifth account of the life of Jesus that is just different from the Gospel accounts. That is the popular one that is taught in most churches and that makes it into the popular media. His book is well worth reading for anyone who is seriously interested in a basic critical overview of what is in the NT.

Bart Ehrman is a colorful character...tell you what, point out one specific thing and lets discuss it. Obviously there are some differences between the Gospels, but that is to be expected. For anything to contradict, that would mean that it is virtually impossible to reconcile the differences, and as far as I am concerned, no such thing has been presented in a way at which it is logically impossible to reconcile. So give me specifics, please.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I get so tired of people trying to use this as a rebuttal.

Really? Then stop using the objection and we won't use the rebuttal.

Actual history is dealing with historic events around normal people with multiple sources to back the claims, as well as on-the-ground archaeological evidence.

Um, we do have multiple accounts...we have four independent Gospels by either disciples or friends of the disciples, we have two skeptics turned believers with James and Paul, and we have at least four independent non-believers who all stated that there was a man named Jesus that lived and was crucified. That is what you call, MULTIPLE SOURCES my friend.

Now as far as the Resurrection event, we conclude that Jesus rose from the dead based on background evidence regarding some of the very things that I mentioned above...so please...spare me.

With religious claims we are dealing with invisible beings.

Not at all, Jesus was a visible being, last time I checked...

And the religious books about people claiming to have seen the ascension of Flying Spaghetti Monster, are not actual proof of the invisible being.

If you have enough people claiming that they seen a FSM, does that mean that it is true? Obviously not. But either the people are lying, delusional, or telling the truth, right? And a case can be made that we can rule out lying AND delusional...but the point is we have historical evidence that Jesus lived, was crucified, and rose from the dead and seen by skeptics and believers alike. You may not like it, but hey...

 

[George-ananda]

I want to throw in a plug for the historicity of the resurrection. It is claimed that the resurrected Christ appeared to the apostles. And all the apostles suffered martyr deaths and I've heard the consensus among historians that the resurrection story existed from the earliest traceable evidence of Christianity. The story was not a later add-on belief. The fact that these alleged eyewitnesses went to their death before they would recant their faith, argues in favor of the resurrection event.

I'm not saying this is ironclad proof but it is evidence that argues in favor of historicity in my opinion.

 

[outhouse]

I've heard the consensus among historians that the resurrection story existed from the earliest traceable evidence of Christianity. .

You have heard wrong.


provide credible sources

 

[George-ananda]

You have heard wrong.


provide credible sources

From Wikipedia

Main article: Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus (the first paragraph below)


The earliest Christians proclaimed Jesus as the risen Christ. The first Christians may be defined as those followers of Jesus who, after his crucifixion, proclaimed him as the risen lord.[32] The earliest Christian scriptures place Jesus' resurrection at the center of religious faith. The preaching and letters of Apostle Peter in the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul declared that Jesus died, was raised by God and the apostles are witnesses to this resurrection.[47]

 

[outhouse]

From Wikipedia

Main article: Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus (the first paragraph below)


The earliest Christians proclaimed Jesus as the risen Christ. The first Christians may be defined as those followers of Jesus who, after his crucifixion, proclaimed him as the risen lord.[32] The earliest Christian scriptures place Jesus' resurrection at the center of religious faith. The preaching and letters of Apostle Peter in the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul declared that Jesus died, was raised by God and the apostles are witnesses to this resurrection.[47]

here is a little Bart Ehrman for you.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

The burial by Joseph of Arimathea I’ve argued could well be a later invention. The empty tomb also could be a later invention. We don’t have a reference to it in Paul; you only have it later in the Gospels

Once people come to believe Jesus’ tomb was empty, they come to believe he’s raised from the dead, and they have visions. I’m not saying I think this happened. I think that it’s plausible. It could have happened. It’s more plausible than the claim that God must have raised Jesus from the dead. That is not the most probable historical explanation.

Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith


Remember the original mark our earliest gospel around 70CE did not have the resurrection

 

[roger1440]

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.

As of yet, I haven’t seen any evidence of any miracles.

“The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.”( Exodus 12:37)
​

When we add the numbers of women and children, the number then goes up somewhere between 3 to 5 million people who schlepped through desert for 40 years, yet they never left a trace. Now that’s what I call a miracle.

 

[George-ananda]

here is a little Bart Ehrman for you.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

I did scan through this and it seems Craig had the upper hand in my opinion. Ehrman leans too heavily on the improbability of miracles.

But none of this reverses my opinion that the fact that apostles (alleged eyewitnesses) chose a martyr's death over recanting is strong evidence (not proof).