Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Ingledsva]

I think the difference between us is that you take a dim view of all these masters that have control of physical reality with their will. I buy into that view. Why? I think the whole universe is just mind-stuff; a play/drama of consciousness.

Jesus appearing physically after death is not as much a stretch for me as it is for you. I believe it has precedence.

Except that in this case, aside from the probability of it being false anyway, we haven't even got an actual witness testimony claiming it.


All we have are stories written 50 or more years, after the supposed events.



*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

LOL! Go back and read the thread.


We were talking about early belief.

It is the later books written by people that were not there, that have a bunch of supernatural junk added in.

You quoted those later books!

No Gospel was written later than 70AD, which is no more than 40 years after the fact, and that isn't late considering the fact that there are people who were alive during the time of the JFK assasination and can still tell you about the times of the early 1960's, specifically 1963, which was 50 years ago.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Except that in this case, aside from the probability of it being false anyway, we haven't even got an actual witness testimony claiming it.


All we have are stories written 50 or more years, after the supposed events.

So if I decide to write a book about the JFK assasination, which was 50 years ago, am I not allowed to do so? It happened 50 years ago, and I can interview people that were actually living during the time. So if it can happen today, why is it so difficult to believe that it couldn't have happened during those times? This is clearly the taxi cab fallacy.

Second, Paul's letters predate the Gospels, so you have an even earlier source which speaks on the Resurrection, and the events that took place within the book of Act's all occurred within 10 years of the Resurrection itself.

So Christianity is not some belief system that arose 50 or 100+ after the events. All of the events occurred within 10-50 years after the Resurrection, which is EARLY eyewitness testimony. So please, at least try to know the history before you critisize.

 

[George-ananda]

The limits of science have to do with whether there's anything testable about the phenomenon.

I agree science can not address most spiritual and paranormal beliefs. However, my personal beliefs can include things science can not address based on thorough consideration of other sources of information.

Me, I don't like being fooled. So I watch my mind pretty closely and with a skeptical eye.

That's good and so do I. That doesn't mean I can't look at a phenomena from all known angles and form an intelligent opinion of likelihood (not proof).

 

[George-ananda]

Except that in this case, aside from the probability of it being false anyway, we haven't even got an actual witness testimony claiming it.


All we have are stories written 50 or more years, after the supposed events.



*

I agree we can't know with the certainty of a modern event. I consider all angles and all I've said is that the apostles apparently choosing martyrdom over recanting belief is strong evidence. And also that there is precedence for so-called miraculous events to surround the highly spiritually advanced.

 

[idav]

I agree we can't know with the certainty of a modern event. I consider all angles and all I've said is that the apostles apparently choosing martyrdom over recanting belief is strong evidence. And also that there is precedence for so-called miraculous events to surround the highly spiritually advanced.

Its strong evidence of belief, thats about all. People would martyr themselves even without meeting jesus.

Consider especially the doubting thomas. People want verification and when he got it it was a physical verification, not a spirit type thing. Even with that, the gospel of thomas is more gnostic but more humanizing to jesus with a claim that divinity is achievable by anyone.

 

[George-ananda]

Its strong evidence of belief, thats about all.

and that's about all I was claiming

 

[idav]

and that's about all I was claiming

There is something to consider there, they spoke very much of faith and not really knowing.

 

[George-ananda]

There is something to consider there, they spoke very much of faith and not really knowing.

The apostles themselves were considered eyewitnesses.

 

[outhouse]

No Gospel was written later than 70AD, which is no more than 40 years after the fact, and that isn't late considering the fact that there are people who were alive during the time of the JFK assasination and can still tell you about the times of the early 1960's, specifically 1963, which was 50 years ago.

Supply sources.


Most REAL scholars claim Mark was written around 70 CE and he was first.

 

[outhouse]

The apostles themselves were considered eyewitnesses.

Many think the 12 is mythical to match the 12 tribes.


The NT does deal with his inner circle quite often, so we may have some real Galilean fishermen at the core.

But 12 would have looked more like a threat to Antipas, and 12 would have starved going from village to village looking for handouts to feed his friends after healing.


If you remember, he tells them not to take money for healing, he also tells them not to take their beggar bowls with them.

 

[Copernicus]

No Gospel was written later than 70AD, which is no more than 40 years after the fact, and that isn't late considering the fact that there are people who were alive during the time of the JFK assasination and can still tell you about the times of the early 1960's, specifically 1963, which was 50 years ago.

That is simply not true. Conservative Christian sources tend to promote this claim, but the reality is that we have no complete copies of the Gospels that date prior to the 4th century, and Irenaeus, the earliest proponent of the "fourfold" New Testament Gospels dates only to 185 CE. Here is what Wikipedia says about dating the Gospels:

Dating

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [34]) view as follows:

• Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]

• Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]

• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]

• John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles and who, according to the ecclesiastical tradition transmitted by Eusebius, was put to death by the Romans shortly before AD 68,[38] nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church.[39]

Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

• Matthew: c. 50 to 70s

• Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s

• Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s

• John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Few academic scholars, however, take Robinson's work seriously. For example, Raymond Brown of the Union Theological Seminary specifically rejects "Bishop John A.T. Robinson's maverick attempt."[40] J.V.M. Sturdy said regarding Robinson's work that he "one sidedly ignores difficulties for his views, steamrollers the evidence, again and again advances from an improbable possibility to a certainty."[41]

Moreover, none of the four Gospels are fully consistent with each other. The stories do not recount all of the same details, and some of the incompatibilities and contradictions are irreconcilable (see Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them).

 

[roger1440]

The apostles themselves were considered eyewitnesses.

Do you know of any sources outside the Bible to support your claim? It is not wise to use the Bible to prove the Bible.

 

[roger1440]

In 1973 George Davis was instantly healed of a heart condition at a Kathryn Kuhlman Christian service.
A pacemaker was placed inside his body several months before. As well as being healed the incision scar dissappeared from his body and the pacemaker disappered fron inside him.
His surgeon was so upset by what happened he had him examined by a group of seven cardiologists one from the medical board at Harvard. They had no explanation except "its the strangest case weve ever seen"

Davis appeared on national television, was interviewed by newspapers and written about in Kuhlmans biography making it wide open for investigation and to be disproven. If anyone tried they have remained very silent about the results.

One of his doctors Dr Geoge Johnston of Philadelphis stated"I can confirm Davis had a heart attack, that a pacemaker was placed in his body and that now the pacemaker and the five-inch incision scar are gone. Its all in the record"

If you put "faith healer pacemaker miracle kuhlman" in google search the first item should be a newspaper article from September 1973 where he was interviewed by the Baltimore Afro American.

Let’s see. A pace maker magically disappears from a man’s body and only one newspaper on the planet does a story about the event. Now that’s what I call a miracle.

 

[oldbadger]

Many think the 12 is mythical to match the 12 tribes.

G-Mark names them, so it's reasonable to think that the group was real.

The NT does deal with his inner circle quite often, so we may have some real Galilean fishermen at the core.

We may have more than half that were netters.

But 12 would have looked more like a threat to Antipas, and 12 would have starved going from village to village looking for handouts to feed his friends after healing.

He attracted groups in the hundreds, certainly, which is why he liked the foreshore and the use of boats to speak from. This also made it easier to be heard. And much safer.

If you remember, he tells them not to take money for healing, he also tells them not to take their beggar bowls with them.

That was an instruction to them before they separated out into Galilee to spread the mission further afield, a mission that did not work well enough to continue. It would have needed a fair sized team to attempt that operation.

 

[Ingledsva]

No Gospel was written later than 70AD, which is no more than 40 years after the fact, and that isn't late considering the fact that there are people who were alive during the time of the JFK assasination and can still tell you about the times of the early 1960's, specifically 1963, which was 50 years ago.

LOL! That is the second time I have done that - not count in Jesus' age.


However -


"Mark: c. 68–73, - c. 65–70.
Matthew: c. 70–100, - c. 80–85.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, - c. 80–85.
John: c. 90–100, - c. 90–110, The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition."

Wiki showing differing date views.


"Mark -very late 60's, Matt - late 70's (or 80's,) Luke -(late 70's) or 80's, John - late 80's or 90's"

Catholic church ideas.


All of these views range from very late 60's to 110.


Only Christian sites try to date them earlier.


The average man lived to 35. Lucky men into their 50's.


How old were they when Jesus died? around his age and older? Then add the years to the date written.


It is unlikely for any but the earliest book to have been written by the apostles they are named for. And- it is unlikely even the earliest is actually written by that apostle.


*

 

[oldbadger]

That is simply not true. Conservative Christian sources tend to promote this claim, but the reality is that we have no complete copies of the Gospels that date prior to the 4th century, and Irenaeus, the earliest proponent of the "fourfold" New Testament Gospels dates only to 185 CE.

Great Post. I read the URL, and took special note of this:-

Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars.

Does the last sentence, (above) rule out the above possibilities?

 

[Ingledsva]

Great Post. I read the URL, and took special note of this:-

Does the last sentence, (above) rule out the above possibilities?

Did you also read that they don't take the earlier dates seriously?




*

 

[oldbadger]

Do you know of any sources outside the Bible to support your claim? It is not wise to use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Fair enough.
It might be a good idea to separate the bible into its individual books, and judge them singly.

EDIT: G-Mark should not have to answer for G-John, etc...

 

[oldbadger]

Let’s see. A pace maker magically disappears from a man’s body and only one newspaper on the planet does a story about the event. Now that’s what I call a miracle.

Try this. It may well have biological foundation, but to me it seems miraculous (like a miracle). I am the witness to this. I'm sorry if it is a bit of a long post.

In 1983 I injured my lower back. (motor-cycle meets pothole!)
Over the years until 1994 it got slowly worse.
From 1994 until early 2000's it recovered slightly.
From then until August 2013 it became progressively worse.
By April 2013 I could not walk for the first hour of any day, and every movement and stance was continuous agony. My left side from hip to toes was in agony and could not move properly.
I had MRI scans etc, but the doctors could only recommend 'the advanced pain team'. I was taking Tramadol...... bloody stuff.
I told my company to find another employee so that I could quit. Could not go on. I kept making mistakes, most dangerous when using big equipment.
I met a herbalist (circa March) who told me to take loads of black pepper and Tumeric with my food.
I met a Buddhist lady (circa March) who showed me exercises. I followed both of these....
In Early August I was at table and stood up to leave. I expected the years old pains..... increased to current agony.
No pain. I walked about. Nothing. I twisted and turned. Nothing.
After decades of pain.... nothing.
Since that evening last August I have not taken any pain killers. I can run, jump about, act like a teenaged idiot and lift heavy equipment at work.

I have to say that if somebody had touched me on the shoulder that August evening, and told me that my sins were forgiven, today I would probably be a believer. I cannot believe that this has happened. I will never forget.