Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[thau]

Well, I guess you are smarter than the disciples. If you were there you would have been a regular Sherlock Holmes huh..

You: "Well, gentleman, it would appear that since we've experienced earthquakes, solar eclipses, thunder, and the resurrection of certain holy men...it seems absolutely necessary that Jesus will rise from the dead in EXACTLY three days. All of the evidence seems to be pointing that direction...after all, earthquakes absolutely implies resurrection, wouldn't you gentleman agree?"

Disciples: Yeah yeah, totally.

Gimme a break...HOWEVER....

One thing I find odd is the fact that the disciples wasn't expecting Jesus to rise from the dead...yet Matthew records the fact that the Pharisses remembered what Jesus said about rising, so they wanted to make the tomb secure and posted a guard to ensure that the disciples won't still the body before the third day (Matt 27:62-66). The Pharisses knew, but the disciples didn't...strange, but oh well.

“…strange, but oh well.” – yes, correct. IOW, it does not shake your faith in any way simply because this particular "apostolic lapse" seems a bit illogical behavior. Doesn’t shake mine a whit either. But I find it somewhat odd that you admit to this incongruity of sorts, yet find the “illogical behavior” of the apostles the poster viole raises to be an insult of a question? It is not. It is a logical question.

If all those matters & miracles happened at the time of the crucifixion it would seem to me the apostles would not be so shocked that Jesus might rise as well. How many other undeniable miracles were they present to as well? Many. Huge manifestations! Calming the stormy sea? Seriously? And they still become cowards in the courtyard when Jesus is taken away? They KNOW they are in the presence of the Son of God and His chosen band, yet they still possess such human weaknesses such as cowardliness, but also small mindedness and doubters. Makes no sense to us believers in this modern age. But do I doubt that is how it occurred? Not at all. I just cannot explain it. If I had to guess I would think God allowed Satan to have his way in causing great fear and confusion among them. A test of their faith, for one, but also a measure by the devil to attempt to thwart the plan of salvation from going forward. And he often half succeeds.

Anyway, we are not going to win that particular argument. It will remain illogical to doubters and so be it. I maintain the evidence for the real God is manifested in so many other ways, that once that has become apparent some of these minor conundrums do not need to be answered because they will never change the larger revealed truths of divinity, mercy and salvation, which remains the real crux of the matter. As Cardinal Henry Newman once said – “a thousand difficulties do not make for one doubt.”


. =========================================

[Comment from George-ananda:] “But you avoided my question: Do you believe religious miracles only occur within the Christian tradition?”

[Your response:] “Yes. I thought I made it clear, but I guess a simple YES is all more the clear.“

[Here was your earlier answer:] “I believe that miracles only happen by the power of supernatural entities, with the only living Supreme Being being the ultimate source of all miracles.”


I do not take that as a clear, Yes, just for the record. His follow-up question was warranted, IMO.

I do enjoy many your comments here (not all that I may agree with). I surely believe there are supernatural manifestations in other religions, such as Hinduism. I also believe the devil has performed many of his own. God is not so clear on all matters that Christians may argue are black or white, based on their own interpretation of Scripture alone. Because, for one, Scripture clearly does not hold all God is communicating to His faithful.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can see them making a shrine out of the grave if the body lay in the tomb...as some people do today, regarding the graves of loved ones. But if the body is no longer in the grave/tomb...what is the point? If my grandmother was raised from the dead and I go by her grave and open the casket and see that her body is no longer there (assuming that she was actually raised), I won't make a shrine out of her former burial site...no. I will make a shrine of the grave/tombstone because that is where the body lay...but I won't make a shrine out of the burial site after she is raised, because after she is raised, who gives a damn about the burial site?

I can only say that I think you profoundly misunderstand human nature. If my Lord and Savior, the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God performs the most profound, most meaningful miracle in humankind's history, there is no way that the location of that event is going to be lost.

So I find it easier to believe that there was no actual tomb... or else that the events didn't happen as told in the gospels.

Well both Jospehus and Tacitus stated that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, and Pilate served as a Roman prefect from 26AD-36AD, according to wikipedia. So Jesus had to be around the town and kicking it at least between 26AD-36AD.

You might want to read a bit about Josephus and Tacitus.

As for Pilate, obviously the writer of Mark knew who was prefect during those years. How could he not know? It was common knowledge. It certainly doesn't add any historicity to his Jesus.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

“…strange, but oh well.” – yes, correct. IOW, it does not shake your faith in any way simply because this particular "apostolic lapse" seems a bit illogical behavior. Doesn’t shake mine a whit either. But I find it somewhat odd that you admit to this incongruity of sorts, yet find the “illogical behavior” of the apostles the poster viole raises to be an insult of a question? It is not. It is a logical question.

Look, I said it was strange, but it is very easy to reconcile. The fact of the matter this whole "guard at the tomb" incident was within a day of the crucifixion. The disciples were in a state of mourning and grief...their master, friend, and teach had just been executed...they were not in the right state of mind to do all of this critical thinking.

If all those matters & miracles happened at the time of the crucifixion it would seem to me the apostles would not be so shocked that Jesus might rise as well. How many other undeniable miracles were they present to as well? Many. Huge manifestations! Calming the stormy sea? Seriously? And they still become cowards in the courtyard when Jesus is taken away? They KNOW they are in the presence of the Son of God and His chosen band, yet they still possess such human weaknesses such as cowardliness, but also small mindedness and doubters. Makes no sense to us believers in this modern age. But do I doubt that is how it occurred? Not at all. I just cannot explain it. If I had to guess I would think God allowed Satan to have his way in causing great fear and confusion among them. A test of their faith, for one, but also a measure by the devil to attempt to thwart the plan of salvation from going forward. And he often half succeeds.

The disciples were human, thau. Its funny that you call them weak, cowardly, and small minded...yet, Christ still hand picked every single one of them....hmmmm, so what does that mean? That mean that it doesn't matter what you think about think, it matters what Jesus thought of them.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I can only say that I think you profoundly misunderstand human nature.

That is bogus. If that is the case then every single grave site in the world would be a shrine. Some people do it, and some dont. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with human nature, but human opinion. There is no "rule of thumb" that every tomb or grave should be made into a shrine. I don't think so, and the disciples don't think so...and neither do the hundred or thousands of graves out there that are not made into a shrine. So stop the madness.

If my Lord and Savior, the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God performs the most profound, most meaningful miracle in humankind's history, there is no way that the location of that event is going to be lost.

Thanks for giving me your opinion, which differs from ours.

So I find it easier to believe that there was no actual tomb... or else that the events didn't happen as told in the gospels.

Laughable. Ok, whatever will make you sleep good tonight.

You might want to read a bit about Josephus and Tacitus.

I did, and I bet you if I read it again it will say the same thing.

As for Pilate, obviously the writer of Mark knew who was prefect during those years. How could he not know? It was common knowledge. It certainly doesn't add any historicity to his Jesus.

Huh?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I was joking. A 360 degrees turn, is no turn at all.

.....

Yes, and the Odyssey records that Odysseus soldiers were turned into pigs by a witch. Alright, if a book describes things, those things must have happened.

Any eyewitnesses?

Do you really believe that appearances in different times and different places give veracity to a claim?

Yes, if people with no axe to grind gives personal testimony.

Well, then Elvis lives and alien abductions are real.

Maybe...but that has nothing to do with whether God raised Jesus from the dead.

I can think of hundred mundane explanations for an empty tomb, even assuming that the accounts of the Gospels are more than just nice stories.

Run a hand full by me.

You never know. Maybe he was about to be fired as prosecutor and was looking for a new job.

Yeah, he was willing to live his life getting persecuted, beaten, put on trial, and imprisoned, and possibly martyred because he "got fired as a prosecutor and was looking for a new job". You convince yourself with that crap, not me.

Midlife crisis, bad conscience, hallucination, alcohol excess, falling in love with a christian, whatever. Again, thousands of possible mundane explanations.

Instead of going by your "mundane explanations", I will just go by what Paul himself said about his conversion (Acts 26:12-23). And that still would not explain the empty tomb and the origin of the disciples belief.

Ok. Replace King Arthur with emperor Vespasian and Excalibur with Vespasian alleged miracles.

I didn't like it that much.

Sure, but the others did. For some reason.

Because they probably didn't think it was necessary, and come to think of it, neither do I.

Sure, but also forgotten by half of the evangelists. Wouldn't you have mentioned it?

If I am telling the full story of Jesus, yes.

The critique is that all these stories are highly implausible, when analyzed critically.

They are highly implausible (if not impossible) if the hypothesis was that these things happened naturally, if that was the case, I would agree. But since the hypothesis is that Goddidit, then it becomes highly plausible. If God exists, then it can happen, and the hypothesis is that God did it, so it happened.

If my master dies, and when He dies I see tombs opening up, earthquakes, thunders, eclipses, etc. then I would logically conclude that He really was what He claimed. And He also claimed that He would come back after three days.
So, what is all this surprise?

They didn't fully understand his message when he was alive, viole. That is what the surprise was about. Everyone aren't as smart as you are, apparently.

Yes, of course. All these events would have made me comfortable that He was really special and He might not have lied about his claims, including His resurrection. Mark 9:31

It did make them comfortable, so comfortable that they went around spreading the good news.

Well, but He informed the disciples, didn't he? Again, Mark 9:31. Exactly three days if I remember sunday school correctly.

Mark also reports of a cloud (sic) confirming to the disciples that Jesus really was who He claimed.

So, why this skepticism after His death? Wouldn't you wait for something to happen on the third day?

Did the disciples suffer from amnesia?

Ciao

- viole

Classic example of a skeptic not reading the entire context but is so quick to critisize. Its funny because if you read the very next verse after the one you keep citing, in verse 32..

31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” 32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

What does it say? It say THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE MEANT AND WERE AFRAID TO ASK HIM ABOUT IT. If they didn't understand what he meant, why the heck would they be waiting for him to appear if they didn't understand what he meant when he said that he would? Cmon now people.

 

[thau]

The disciples were human, thau. Its funny that you call them weak, cowardly, and small minded...yet, Christ still hand picked every single one of them....hmmmm, so what does that mean? That means that it doesn't matter what you think about them, it matters what Jesus thought of them.

That’s not much of an answer to your own question.

It means God is more than willing if not intent on using weak vessels to do his bidding. He does not single out the wise, the powerful, the clever or the gifted as his “special creation.” He prefers the humble and the simple folk to manifest Himself to the world.

But that doesn’t really address my points or questions. No matter… you seem to have enough to deal with here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is bogus. If that is the case then every single grave site in the world would be a shrine. Some people do it, and some dont. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with human nature, but human opinion. There is no "rule of thumb" that every tomb or grave should be made into a shrine. I don't think so, and the disciples don't think so...and neither do the hundred or thousands of graves out there that are not made into a shrine. So stop the madness.

So you think that hundreds of thousands of people have arisen from their graves? And that's why Jesus' grave is nothing special, to be remembered?

Really I can't make any sense of your paragraph above.

Huh?

I believe the writer of Mark was writing fiction. Writing in 70 CE, he set the Christ into 30 CE Jerusalem. And, of course, he knew who was prefect in 30 CE Jerusalem.

Think historical fiction. It's when we set a fictional character back into a real historical setting.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes. I thought I made it clear, but I guess a simple YES is all more the clear.

Illogical reaction showing you are not comfortable with the question. I'll drop that line of questioning here.

 

[George-ananda]

It was a religious program. They actually supported those miracles. But it was obvious that they weren't.

Obvious?? Perhaps you wanted it to be obvious. It's hard to accept that you can obviously debunk a person so studied by so many for so long by watching a program.

They also supported the supernatural origin of pipe leaks.

Makes no sense. I'll comment if you care to elaborate on what you're talking about.

Yes, but they didn't. Only a bishop, or the catholic miracle commission, could convince them otherwise. So, here you have a multitude of people witnessing that Maria wept: would you use all these accounts of so many people as evidence that something deeper happened?

Each case needs to be studied objectively. In this case I would want to know if a serious investigation by skeptical people was also done.

A miracle has the benefit of the doubt only when all other explanations are more miraculous then the event they try to explain.

After years of studying paranormal phenomena like ghosts, reincarnational memories, spirit communications, Near-Death Experiences, religious icons, and a few I'm neglecting to mention I believe the chance that we live in a universe where amazing things occur is more logical than believing we live in a universe where no amazing things occur.

Plus I have come to accept the Vedic/Indian/Hindu view of the universe where these phenomena are part and parcel of a universe that exists with more than a physical-only level. My world-view is that higher entities can in special cases directly interact with the physical plane.

That is why you need objective tools like science or rational inquiry.

I have observed many times where science and rational inquiry can not adequately explain reoccurring phenomena.

Ciao

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you think that hundreds of thousands of people have arisen from their graves? And that's why Jesus' grave is nothing special, to be remembered?

Really I can't make any sense of your paragraph above.

You made it seem as if sense the disciples didn't make a shrine out of the tomb, then they were going against human nature.

I believe the writer of Mark was writing fiction. Writing in 70 CE, he set the Christ into 30 CE Jerusalem. And, of course, he knew who was prefect in 30 CE Jerusalem.

Think historical fiction. It's when we set a fictional character back into a real historical setting.

Cool, that is what you think.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Illogical reaction showing you are not comfortable with the question. I'll drop that line of questioning here.

Illogical reaction? I answered the freakin question what you are talking about?

 

[outhouse]

Anyone at all

Are you ever going to give us something that has historicity of any kind as far as miracles???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


So far I just see apologist stamping their feet demanding we look at evidence with a pseudoscientific lense

 

[cottage]

Memory lapse, perhaps?

Now you’re being facetious. There’s no lapse of memory, it is one of my favourite arguments. And I’ve reviewed all of our discussions on the Ontological Argument and some of my objections and counter arguments don’t appear to have had a proper reply.

I said in the box.

I’m sorry but I don’t know what you mean by ‘in the box’?

We've also never seen life originating from non-living material (abiogenesis), and animals producing different kind of animals (macroevolution), and these are alleged NATURAL things that are supposed to happen, yet we don't see it. Does that stop you people (naturalists) from believing in those things? No.

That is a diversionary straw man. I don’t believe-in those things you mention, and certainly not in the same way as your committed belief-as-faith. I only believe-that evolutionary theory is probable until and unless it is proved otherwise or corrected, which it might be. It isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool world view that allows absolutely nothing to count against it in any respect, quite unlike religious dogma. Now back to the point, the concept and the very account of the risen Christ is utterly dependent upon a miracle of the dead coming back to life but if miracles are a fact as the Bible would have us believe, then why are there no modern day resurrections (as opposed to resuscitations)? And as I’ve already mentioned, there are not even any instances of limbs growing back or dead tissue being regenerated, never mind cases like the parting of the Red Sea or dead bodies standing up and walking after four days (Lazarus).

But the point was to focus on Jesus' Resurrection, not theirs. And look at the way it was written, almost as an afterthought, kind of like "this great thing happened, but lets get back to this Jesus business, shall we?".

Either the event itself was not that significant, or Matthew didn't think it was significant enough to elaborate on in light of the Resurrection of Jesus.

That’s not the point. If this is history, as theists insist on telling us, then all those graves opening is of enormous historical importance.

But why would he mention it if it wasn't true? Was he lying?

Perhaps! It seems likely that it was done to emphasize and venerate the magnitude the whole affair.

No doubt. You wouldn't have the disciples preaching the Resurrection in the book of Acts if they did not see Jesus post-mortem.

So they claim, or believe!

Well, on the same token no one saw the holy men come to life. The narrative certainly doesn't imply it. People saw the men after they had risen...so I think we can assume that these men died recently...assuming that they were recognized by those that saw them, right?

So that might not have been true either?

No, the content of the scripture doesn't seem to indicate that people actually saw the men rise from their resting place. It states that the tombs were open, the bodies raised to life, and the men went into the holy city. So this is actually a parralle to Jesus' Resurrection in that sense.

I believe it says the graves were ‘opened’. Matthew’s words appear to describe events as they were happening, rather than giving an account of events after they had occurred. ‘The saints which slept arose’. And we are told the men ‘went into the holy city’ and not ‘the men came into the holy city’. Matthew is speaking as if those things were seen to happen as they occurred and not merely as conjecture linking the discovery of empty graves and the saints strolling into the city unannounced. But equally this story could have been contrived to sensationalize further the other more significant event that supposedly occurred that day, and hence we have no witnesses in either case.

Well, it seems to me that Jesus' Resurrection was greater, since he predicted his own betrayal, death, and Resurrection.

Betrayal and death, I’m not at all surprised that he could see that coming due to the enmity that his preaching caused in certain quarters. And the Resurrection is the very point in question, which some may have decided to make happen after Jesus’ death – at least as far as appearances are concerned.

Well, that is what you think, but what has actually occured? The Christian movement swept through the Roman empire like a wild fire and by the time the empero Nero was in office, it was out of control. Now Christianity is the worlds largest religion, and this is all based on the Resurrection of one man, Jesus Christ. So there is little doubt on which has the greatest spiritual significance and effector upon the religiously inclined.

Yes, quite! And that’s why I say the graves opening is also a fiction, an embellishment to create a sense of awe and magnitude in Jesus’ supposed resurrection, all the greater to convince people to believe it happened.

So, if that one is off the table, what is the next one?

His body was removed and buried elsewhere.

 

[allright]

Anyone at all

Are you ever going to give us something that has historicity of any kind as far as miracles???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


So far I just see apologist stamping their feet demanding we look at evidence with a pseudoscientific lense

Check my post #51 in this thread Its on page 6

 

[George-ananda]

Check my post #51 in this thread Its on page 6

This sounds interesting but do you have any information beyond the one article in a small newspaper?

I've tried google.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You made it seem as if sense the disciples didn't make a shrine out of the tomb, then they were going against human nature.

Oh, yes. That is indeed my argument.

You have answered that there are thousands of tombs which aren't made into shrines.

Which makes no sense. No one rose alive from those thousands of tombs, did they?

But someone did rise from Jesus' tomb... so the story goes.

So I'm asking why no one even remembered the location of that very special tomb.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh, yes. That is indeed my argument.

You have answered that there are thousands of tombs which aren't made into shrines.

Which makes no sense. No one rose alive from those thousands of tombs, did they?

But someone did rise from Jesus' tomb... so the story goes.

So I'm asking why no one even remembered the location of that very special tomb.

That's just one of the little things that people of certain religions don't think about. I know I didn't for a long time when I was a Christian. But then I did. And then more of these seemingly little problems added up and added up until it ended up collapsing the whole house of cards.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's just one of the little things that people of certain religions don't think about. I know I didn't for a long time when I was a Christian. But then I did. And then more of these seemingly little problems added up and added up until it ended up collapsing the whole house of cards.

Sometimes I'm a little disappointed that I lost my faith so early. For me, it was the Easter Bunny that did it. One day my brother laughed at me for believing in the Easter Bunny. I thought about it. By the next day, I accepted that God and all magical creatures probably didn't exist. Just stories told to me by my parents.

So I went from pious ten-year-old to godless heathen in one day. (Yeah, I still believed in Santa and the Easter Bunny at 8-10 years old.)

But if I had continued in faith into my young adulthood, I probably would have experienced the slow crumbling which you describe. It really just isn't possible for some of us to believe irrational stuff.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sometimes I'm a little disappointed that I lost my faith so early. For me, it was the Easter Bunny that did it. One day my brother laughed at me for believing in the Easter Bunny. I thought about it. By the next day, I accepted that God and all magical creatures probably didn't exist. Just stories told to me by my parents.

So I went from pious ten-year-old to godless heathen in one day. (Yeah, I still believed in Santa and the Easter Bunny at 8-10 years old.)

But if I had continued in faith into my young adulthood, I probably would have experienced the slow crumbling which you describe. It really just isn't possible for some of us to believe irrational stuff.

Funnily, I never really believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I always knew it was my mom. But I enjoyed the stories about it, and I still do.

I went through the first half of my teens being very anti-religious and anti-Christian. But then I decided to try going to a church when I was 16. Not exactly sure why. But I ended up joining the Catholic Church. I really believed in it for awhile. Then things would happen and I would go back and forth. But now I think it's safe to say that I'm done with Christianity and organized religion. Even when it comes to the Left-Hand Path, I have decided to just strip it down to the bare essentials of autotheism and avoid all the sectarianism in the LHP. It's the ultimate in spiritual freedom.

As for other gods, outside of me and not including other people? Classical notions of theism? I've lost my faith in that. I'm just agnostic on that question. I am tired of pretending to have faith in something that doesn't impact me in my life, and that includes theistic Satanism. If they exist, fine. But that's not going to change anything for me. I am my own Divinity and final authority in my life. It's so simple, yet so profound.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Even when it comes to the Left-Hand Path, I have decided to just strip it down to the bare essentials of autotheism and avoid all the sectarianism in the LHP. It's the ultimate in spiritual freedom.

As for other gods, outside of me and not including other people? Classical notions of theism? I've lost my faith in that. I'm just agnostic on that question. I am tired of pretending to have faith in something that doesn't impact me in my life, and that includes theistic Satanism. If they exist, fine. But that's not going to change anything for me. I am my own Divinity and final authority in my life. It's so simple, yet so profound.

Yeah. Just a guy and his God. I really think that's the only way to be both religious and intellectually integrated.