Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

Then they are committing the taxi cab fallacy also.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

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.

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

Claiming something beyond the norm does not make it historic, or Fact!



Books claim ghosts, fairies, monsters, dragons, etc, exist.


None the less, they are just claims, not fact.



*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

What I find amazing is the fact that 40 years after the event is still "to early". Laughable. As I said anyway, we still have the letters of Paul which predate the Gospels...and that is early. The events which Paul talks about in 1 Corin 15:3-7 happened within 5 years after the Resurrection.

Now I don't know what part of "PAUL'S LETTERS PREDATE THE GOSPELS" and "you can get the basis of Christian beliefs from PAUL'S LETTERS ALONE" don't you understand.

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

Like what?

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

Once again, for the 5th time, Paul's letters predate the Gospels and the events in 1Corin 15:3-7 happened within 5 years of the Resurrection...the point is simple; the belief of the Resurrection itself was an early belief...the belief itself was early, and this belief was held before any New Testament text was written. So all of this stuff you are saying about what was "added to some texts" is irrelevant if the core belief of the Resurrection was as early the events which Paul talked about in 1Corin 15:3-7.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Claiming something beyond the norm does not make it historic, or Fact!

I agree...so the question becomes why did they believe it? If they believed it then they certainly weren't lying...so why would they believe that Jesus raised from the dead if they didn't have reasons to believe it?

 

[Ingledsva]

Then they are committing the taxi cab fallacy also.

No they/we are not.


You obviously don't understand what that is, as you are using it incorrectly!



*

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree...so the question becomes why did they believe it? If they believed it then they certainly weren't lying...so why would they believe that Jesus raised from the dead if they didn't have reasons to believe it?

Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from Golden Tablets, which were then lost?

In my personal opinion, some people believe stuff because they want to believe it. That is their reason for believing it.

 

[Ingledsva]

I agree...so the question becomes why did they believe it? If they believed it then they certainly weren't lying...so why would they believe that Jesus raised from the dead if they didn't have reasons to believe it?

1. Because they weren't actually there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


2. The books were written later.


3. There is obvious mistranslating, misreading, misquoting, of the texts.


Jesus for instance, NEVER says he is God, or that God is a trinity.


But people like you claim it is so - anyway.


*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. Because they weren't actually there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Um, Ingledsva, I am talking about the disciples: Why did they believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

2. The books were written later.

Irrelevant in explaining the origin of the disciples belief.

3. There is obvious mistranslating, misreading, misquoting, of the texts.

Like what?

Jesus for instance, NEVER says he is God, or that God is a trinity.

I've already answered this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from Golden Tablets, which were then lost?

In my personal opinion, some people believe stuff because they want to believe it. That is their reason for believing it.

It isn't the same thing though. Many people will believe and die for what they believe to be true...but no one will believe and be willing to die for something that they KNOW to be false.

The point is Jesus' disciples wouldn't have been going around town claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and willing to be persecuted for their beliefs if they knew that what they were believing in was false. They wasn't going by hearsay...they were going by personal eyewitness accounts. That is the difference.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No they/we are not.


You obviously don't understand what that is, as you are using it incorrectly!

Well I will put it like this; I am not using it incorrectly when it comes to labeling your fallacious logic regarding the Resurrection account.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It isn't the same thing though. Many people will believe and die for what they believe to be true...but no one will believe and be willing to die for something that they KNOW to be false.

The point is Jesus' disciples wouldn't have been going around town claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and willing to be persecuted for their beliefs if they knew that what they were believing in was false. They wasn't going by hearsay...they were going by personal eyewitness accounts. That is the difference.

Which disciple saw Jesus, and how do you know?

 

[Katzpur]

Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from Golden Tablets, which were then lost?

For the same reason even more people believe in the Ten Commandments which were written on stone tablets and then lost.

In my personal opinion, some people believe stuff because they want to believe it. That is their reason for believing it.

When it comes to religious beliefs, you're right. No religion can be proven to be true. People believe in the religion they've chosen because its doctrines ring true to them. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For the same reason even more people believe in the Ten Commandments which were written on stone tablets and then lost.

Yep. To us skeptical rationalists, both claims seem like Real Stretchers, although the stone tablets are a little easier to swallow since that happened Long Ago and Far Away, when magic really did infuse the world.

When it comes to religious beliefs, you're right. No religion can be proven to be true. People believe in the religion they've chosen because its doctrines ring true to them. Nothing wrong with that.

It seems that the major reason people believe in their religion is because their parents and culture believe it. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not for me. Forgive how arrogant this will probably sound to you, but I take God more seriously than that. Even if my parents did happen to follow the correct God, I'd throw Him over just on principle.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Which disciple saw Jesus, and how do you know?

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 gives the list of who saw Jesus post-mortem.

 

[Agnostic75]

People believe in the religion they've chosen because its doctrines ring true to them. Nothing wrong with that.

That is true except when religious people try to control the lives of other people based solely upon religion, such as political opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and physician assisted suicide based solely upon religion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 gives the list of who saw Jesus post-mortem.

OK. If that's enough for you to believe it, then it is.

Do you believe all claims of magic from ancient texts or only those contained in biblical texts?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

OK. If that's enough for you to believe it, then it is.

Do you believe all claims of magic from ancient texts or only those contained in biblical texts?

I believe in the bible because of the historicity surrounding the people, the events, and the claims of the people regarding those events.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe in the bible because of the historicity surrounding the people, the events, and the claims of the people regarding those events.

There's much better historicity for Kim Jong Il, the first leader of N. Korea, than for Jesus, wouldn't you agree?

And when Kim Jong Il was born, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring, among other miraculous events.

Do you believe that? If not, why believe the Jesus stories but not the Kim Jong stories?

 

[Katzpur]

That is true except when religious people try to control the lives of other people based solely upon religion, such as political opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and physician assisted suicide based solely upon religion.

Agreed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There's much better historicity for Kim Jong Il, the first leader of N. Korea, than for Jesus, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely.

And when Kim Jong Il was born, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring, among other miraculous events.

Where is the evidence?

Do you believe that? If not, why believe the Jesus stories but not the Kim Jong stories?

I have no problems believing that miraculous events are possible with ANYONE, not just Kim Jong Il...as long as the existence of God is possible and he miraculous events are through him.