Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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:

What does complete copies have to do with when the original copies were written? I am talking about when the books were originally wrote. As far as dating the Gospels are concerned, I can build a case for dating the books no later than 70AD. That's the point; a positive case can be made.

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).

As I said previously, I need specifics. There are many websites and many books that have been written which answers virtually all alleged contradictions, I happen to have one myself titled "When Critics Ask", written by Norman Geisler. So answers are out there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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."

Paul is the central figure in the book of Acts, and Acts is the part 2 of Luke, and I refuse to believe that the book of Acts was written prior to Paul's death if he had died after it was written. Both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by Luke, companion of Paul. So it just doesn't make much sense (in my opinion) for Paul's friend to write a book about him and not include his death, especially if he died a martyr as early Christian traditional claims he did. Now Paul is said to have died around 67AD. So since I can't make myself believe that Acts wouldn't include this in a book at which he is a central figure, I am concluding that Acts was written prior to his death, which is no later than 70AD...and if the Gospel of Luke is said to have "borrowed" from Mark, then obviously the Gospel of Mark had to be written earlier.

That is the case that can be made, and I think that is a positive case.

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.

The early Christian church attributed authorship of the Gospels to the men which we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If this is the case, then these late dates makes absolutely no sense, especially the 80's and 90's dates (although with God, anything is possible).

Second, even if for the sake of argument those dates above are correct (which I don't for one second believe), that still doesn't take away from the fact that the letters of Paul predate the Gospel's, particularly 1 Corin 15:3-7, where Paul states that Jesus died, was buried, and raised on the third day and seen to not only the disciples but to Paul himself. And the interesting thing about this passage is it not only predates the Gospels, but the events can be dated to within 5 years of the Resurrection...so this is early stuff here.

So even if we didn't have the Gospels we would still have Paul's testimony, which affirms what the Gospels say, that Jesus rose from the dead.

Only Christian sites try to date them earlier.

Only because we have reasons to.

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

Men can live however many years God allows them to live. Ramesses the Great lived to be over 90, at the time when Egyptians lived to be 35ish...so the point is; there are exceptions to the "rule".

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

Given the fact that we are talking about an alleged omnipotent God that can raise people from the dead, I highly doubt that the child's play act of allowing certain men to live beyond the norm would be a difficult task.

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.

Who wrote the gospels wasn't a subject of controversy to the early Church...it is only when unbelievers that are living 2,000 years later understand that the earliest we can date the Gospels, the more credible they are...that is when things come in to question...the early Church never had a quarrel about it, and they were more close to the events than any living historian or new testament "expert" we have today...so I will go with the early Church..they had no axe to grind...and not only that, but the story of the Resurrection dates back to within 5 years after the crucifixion, many years before the Paul's letter and the Gospels themselves.

So as previously mentioned, Christianity isn't something that began 50 years after the events, which some of you people tend to think...the belief, the system, the events, all date to within 5 years of the Resurrection...pretty early stuff.

 

[outhouse]

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

Supply a source from a credible non apologetic scholar.

He attracted groups in the hundreds,

Supply a source from a credible non apologetic scholar.

 

[outhouse]

Men can live however many years God allows them to live.

.

That simple is not true.

Nature gives us about 120 ish years tops. Nobody goes to far past that for a reason. Nature wont let you.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Supply sources.


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

Ok, first of all, you have the early Christian church stating that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote gospels...so if they all wrote Gospels then it doesn't matter when it was written, as long as they wrote it. Reverend Jesse Jackson (MLK's friend) can very well write a biography about MLK to this day, over 40 years after the assassination. As long as he wrote the book, it doesn't matter WHEN he wrote it. Second, as mentioned in another post, we still have a case for Christ, the Resurrection, and the post-mortem appearances and the origin of the disciples belief based off of Paul's letter ALONE.

Now as much as Christians love and cherish the Gospels, the Gospels are not needed to establish the Resurrection, Paul's letters does just that by themselves. The point is simply; we have sources that predate the Gospels which affirms the central belief of Christians, that Jesus lived, died, was buried, raised, and seen alive by followers and skeptics alike.

Ahhh, it is a talent.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That simple is not true.

Nature gives us about 120 ish years tops. Nobody goes to far past that for a reason. Nature wont let you.

Wowwww outhouse...you've just said that "nature gives us about 120 ish years, right"....well, what did God say?

Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

It just so happened that the one number that POPPED in to your head as you made the post just HAPPENS to be the same number that God said. Wow.

 

[idav]

Ok, first of all, you have the early Christian church stating that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote gospels...so if they all wrote Gospels then it doesn't matter when it was written, as long as they wrote it. Reverend Jesse Jackson (MLK's friend) can very well write a biography about MLK to this day, over 40 years after the assassination. As long as he wrote the book, it doesn't matter WHEN he wrote it. Second, as mentioned in another post, we still have a case for Christ, the Resurrection, and the post-mortem appearances and the origin of the disciples belief based off of Paul's letter ALONE.

Now as much as Christians love and cherish the Gospels, the Gospels are not needed to establish the Resurrection, Paul's letters does just that by themselves. The point is simply; we have sources that predate the Gospels which affirms the central belief of Christians, that Jesus lived, died, was buried, raised, and seen alive by followers and skeptics alike.

Ahhh, it is a talent.

Yet paul isnt a witness of the Resurrection and as he talked much of spirit, as his vision, that isnt what is written in the gospels, Thomas experienced a physical jesus. Paul proves over and over he didnt read or know the gospels.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yet paul isnt a witness of the Resurrection and as he talked much of spirit, as his vision, that isnt what is written in the gospels, Thomas experienced a physical jesus. Paul proves over and over he didnt read or know the gospels.

Paul said that Jesus appeared to him 1Corin 15:3-7....he also stated that he met with the disiples, idav. He didn't have to read or know the Gospels if he was amongst the disciples, cmon now people.

Forgive the typos lol

 

[idav]

Paul said that Jesus appeared to him 1Corin 15:3-7....he also stated that he met with the disiples, idav. He didn't never to read or no the Gospels if he was amongst the disciples, cmon now people.

Yes I read acts before and saw immediate disagreement.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Who was trying to 'prove' the Bible Not me.

I was just saying consensus is the Apostles (like Peter, etc.) died martyr deaths and were considered eyewitnesses is evidence they experienced something real and is evidence in favor of the resurrection story; But I never said PROOF.

It is interesting to me that every time I've ever have anything positive to say about Jesus, and I'm not a Christian, I've been swooped on. And all kinds of words and beliefs I don't hold get put into my mouth. I think the stench from fundamentalist Christianity has so fouled the air for so many that we can't even have a sensible conversation.

I know even claiming Jesus or the Apostles even existed will put many on the attack.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Maybe many, like you, would just sarcastically dismiss it without investigation. There was a named Harvard Doctor alleged to be involved. So there is something to investigate. What happened?

(and don't read into my comments that I'm contending the story is true (or false))

Did the mainstream press investigate and disprove it? Did they not even investigate it? Or did it not even hit their radar?

 

[oldbadger]

Supply a source from a credible non apologetic scholar.
Supply a source from a credible non apologetic scholar.

This your demand in answer to my post:-

Originally Posted by oldbadger View Post
G-Mark names them, so it's reasonable to think that the group was real.
and
He attracted groups in the hundreds,

I was also suggesting that larger crowds (than you believe) did attend Jesus:-

You mentioned in an earlier post:-

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.

Plx may I submit my replies? There are two, one from yourself, the other from a well known historian, John Dominic Crosson.

1.
From the thread, Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

Part of Post 912
But not one source says the gospel of Mark is fiction, nor does anyone claim Jesus did not exist.

You have written that there the scholars agree that G-Mark is not fiction, so please be more prepared to consider what it reports, that Jesus held meetings in the rugged hillsides and along the shorelines by the Lake, and how he coped with any risks.

2.
What you don't realise is that J.D.Crosson recognises several incidents where Jewish peasants congregated in huge numbers in direct appeal or defiance against officialdom, thus giving precedent to show that Yeshua's gatherings, much less 'defiant', could easily have occurred.

J D C :- We have explicit evidence, then, .............. of seven public protests (described)............. Only the first and last were socioecenomic in content; all the others were religiopolitical.

For a full reading of the evidence, go to last paragragh of page 135, The Historical Jesus.
The Jewish peasants of Galilee, as described by Josephus, were natural warriors and trained from early youth. Plx don't ask for a source.... iut's time for you to research all for yourself. They were not frightened of gathering.

Further to that, it should be noted that there is no mention of the authorities massacring John the Baptist's supporters at his arrest, which would almost certainly have been covered in the books like G-John, such was it's anti-Jewish flavouring. No...... Jesus attended some very large gatherings, in the rugged hils and on the shorelines of the lake.

Please supply a list of the scholars whose findings (and opinions) you consider to be satisfactory.
Previously you have required academic backing for opinions (apart from you own?), but now you want to be selective of that resource as well?

 

[Parsimony]

This is clearly the taxi cab fallacy.

What is the taxicab fallacy?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What is the taxicab fallacy?

When you believe in the logic of something all the way up until you "arrive" at something that you don't like, and suddenly the same logic that you used for other things, you don't use on this particular thing..

For example, in this particular case, she made it seem as if it is so absurd to believe in Resurrection because "there is no actual evidence of this event; just a book saying it happen" (post #84).

Well, our entire knowledge of history is based off of things that were written down in books or otherwise, and I certainly doubt that she is skeptical about these other things in the same way she is skeptical about the events in the bible, when the same logic applies.

Taxi cab fallacy.

 

[outhouse]

This your demand in answer to my post:-


I was also suggesting that larger crowds (than you believe) did attend Jesus:-

You mentioned in an earlier post:-


Plx may I submit my replies? There are two, one from yourself, the other from a well known historian, John Dominic Crosson.

1.
From the thread, Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?


You have written that there the scholars agree that G-Mark is not fiction, so please be more prepared to consider what it reports, that Jesus held meetings in the rugged hillsides and along the shorelines by the Lake, and how he coped with any risks.

2.
What you don't realise is that J.D.Crosson recognises several incidents where Jewish peasants congregated in huge numbers in direct appeal or defiance against officialdom, thus giving precedent to show that Yeshua's gatherings, much less 'defiant', could easily have occurred.



For a full reading of the evidence, go to last paragragh of page 135, The Historical Jesus.
The Jewish peasants of Galilee, as described by Josephus, were natural warriors and trained from early youth. Plx don't ask for a source.... iut's time for you to research all for yourself. They were not frightened of gathering.

Further to that, it should be noted that there is no mention of the authorities massacring John the Baptist's supporters at his arrest, which would almost certainly have been covered in the books like G-John, such was it's anti-Jewish flavouring. No...... Jesus attended some very large gatherings, in the rugged hils and on the shorelines of the lake.

Please supply a list of the scholars whose findings (and opinions) you consider to be satisfactory.
Previously you have required academic backing for opinions (apart from you own?), but now you want to be selective of that resource as well?

You having a opinon does not make you correct.


Supply sources.

 

[oldbadger]

You having a opinon does not make you correct.

Supply sources.

I quoted from your own post and JD Crosson's THJ.
My having an opinion does not make me correct, it is for other members to consider, shelve or dump.
You having an opinion does not make you correct, it is for other members to consider, shelve or dump.

But you did write that post, explaining that scholars do not regard G-Mark as fiction. You can stand by it, or retract it, as you please.

 

[Ingledsva]

When you believe in the logic of something all the way up until you "arrive" at something that you don't like, and suddenly the same logic that you used for other things, you don't use on this particular thing..

For example, in this particular case, she made it seem as if it is so absurd to believe in Resurrection because "there is no actual evidence of this event; just a book saying it happen" (post #84).

Well, our entire knowledge of history is based off of things that were written down in books or otherwise, and I certainly doubt that she is skeptical about these other things in the same way she is skeptical about the events in the bible, when the same logic applies.

Taxi cab fallacy.

LOL! That is so much BULL!


YOU SAID -

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.

I SAID -

There is no actual evidence of this event.


Just a book saying it happened.

That is called a FACT.


You continue to be ridiculous in your comparisons.


A dead man getting out of his grave and walking around - compared to - normal things written in books.


Well let me think!!!!!!! - You lose!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Paul is the central figure in the book of Acts, and Acts is the part 2 of Luke, and I refuse to believe that the book of Acts was written prior to Paul's death if he had died after it was written. Both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by Luke, companion of Paul. So it just doesn't make much sense (in my opinion) for Paul's friend to write a book about him and not include his death, especially if he died a martyr as early Christian traditional claims he did. Now Paul is said to have died around 67AD. So since I can't make myself believe that Acts wouldn't include this in a book at which he is a central figure, I am concluding that Acts was written prior to his death, which is no later than 70AD...and if the Gospel of Luke is said to have "borrowed" from Mark, then obviously the Gospel of Mark had to be written earlier.

That is the case that can be made, and I think that is a positive case.




The early Christian church attributed authorship of the Gospels to the men which we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If this is the case, then these late dates makes absolutely no sense, especially the 80's and 90's dates (although with God, anything is possible).

Second, even if for the sake of argument those dates above are correct (which I don't for one second believe), that still doesn't take away from the fact that the letters of Paul predate the Gospel's, particularly 1 Corin 15:3-7, where Paul states that Jesus died, was buried, and raised on the third day and seen to not only the disciples but to Paul himself. And the interesting thing about this passage is it not only predates the Gospels, but the events can be dated to within 5 years of the Resurrection...so this is early stuff here.

So even if we didn't have the Gospels we would still have Paul's testimony, which affirms what the Gospels say, that Jesus rose from the dead.



Only because we have reasons to.



Men can live however many years God allows them to live. Ramesses the Great lived to be over 90, at the time when Egyptians lived to be 35ish...so the point is; there are exceptions to the "rule".



Given the fact that we are talking about an alleged omnipotent God that can raise people from the dead, I highly doubt that the child's play act of allowing certain men to live beyond the norm would be a difficult task.



Who wrote the gospels wasn't a subject of controversy to the early Church...it is only when unbelievers that are living 2,000 years later understand that the earliest we can date the Gospels, the more credible they are...that is when things come in to question...the early Church never had a quarrel about it, and they were more close to the events than any living historian or new testament "expert" we have today...so I will go with the early Church..they had no axe to grind...and not only that, but the story of the Resurrection dates back to within 5 years after the crucifixion, many years before the Paul's letter and the Gospels themselves.

So as previously mentioned, Christianity isn't something that began 50 years after the events, which some of you people tend to think...the belief, the system, the events, all date to within 5 years of the Resurrection...pretty early stuff.

No credible source outside those with a Christian agenda, believe the Books were written that early.


Most credible scholars have also noted things which appear to be inserted into some texts.


The early church was trying to gain power, - hence they probably had an agenda, and added to some texts.


We have also noted many mistranslations of the texts. This is why I always say to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to get a better idea of what it actually says.



*

 

[idav]

When you believe in the logic of something all the way up until you "arrive" at something that you don't like, and suddenly the same logic that you used for other things, you don't use on this particular thing..

For example, in this particular case, she made it seem as if it is so absurd to believe in Resurrection because "there is no actual evidence of this event; just a book saying it happen" (post #84).

Well, our entire knowledge of history is based off of things that were written down in books or otherwise, and I certainly doubt that she is skeptical about these other things in the same way she is skeptical about the events in the bible, when the same logic applies.

Taxi cab fallacy.

Most people dont believe in ghosts or magic yet believe their holy scripts when magic pops up.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is called a FACT.


You continue to be ridiculous in your comparisons.

There is historical evidence that Jesus' followers claimed to see him after he was declared dead. That is a fact...and that was/is the focal belief of the Christian movement. That is a FACT.

A dead man getting out of his grave and walking around - compared to - normal things written in books.

If God chooses to raise a man from the dead, then that is his prerogative, and whether you consider this "normal" or not is irrelevant. The hypothesis is GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD, and if God exists, then this is certainly possible.

Well let me think!!!!!!! - You lose!

With me being on the winning team (Christianity), it is mighty hard to lose anything.