Matt2239 wrote
There is more evidence for the miracles than against them. There are several written descriptions of miracles performed by Jesus which were committed to paper just a few short years after they happened. Even today, we have no scientific explanation for how these things happened. They called them miracles 2000 years ago. We cannot explain them today either. That would seem to indicate that they are now what they were then: miracles.
You don’t seem to understand what would actually constitute evidence. Let me recommend that you supplement your education by reading the Scottish philosopher David Hume who had some interesting things to say on the subject. Or if that’s too heavy-going for you check out Prof Ehrman’s debates with Mike Licona and William Lane Craig about the historical evidence for the Resurrection on YouTube. The Resurrection is the biggest miracle of all and if you could prove that historically then why quibble about the rest? (Of course if you could establish the Resurrection as a fact of history it would seem to be rather puzzling what the point of faith would be.)
You can’t say a miracle didn’t happen simply because you can’t explain it. Its inexplicability is captured in the meaning of the word “miracle” already. You can only say you don’t believe.
Nor can you establish that a miracle did happen by pointing out that you cannot think of a rational explanation for it. As Robert pointed out, maybe it’s all made up. After all, this is exactly what you believe about all the other religions and their miracles, right?
Who you gonna believe — those who wrote “do unto others,” “turn the other cheek,” “blessed are the nice people,” or Richard Carrier? Who’s afraid of that debate?
Well I’m not going to “believe” anyone without good reason to do so. I don’t find Carrier’s mythicism compelling and while the sayings attributed to Jesus do contain some wisdom, he inherited it all from the Hebrew prophets and wisdom literature.
Robert said
OldDogNewTricks said ... The miracle stories are only relevant in that they point to them being something Mark received rather than invented himself. …
Why do you think Mark could only have inherited miracle stories and not himself have created any?
I did not mean to imply that Mark did not invent any miracle stories of his own. But the two calming the sea stories and the two feeding the multitude stories are clearly inherited. Why invent such very similar stories? Mark 6 is full of undetailed stories about casting out demons and healing the sick. None of those Mark 6 stories have any particular point. Why invent them?
OTOH some of Mark’s miracle stories sound very much like he came up with them.
One example: In Mark 5, a woman with a long-term bleeding disorder touches the garment of Jesus and is immediately cured. Jesus knows something has happened and asks who touched him. Notice that it was not any volitional act of Jesus that cured her. As Jesus put it “your faith has made you well”. Now a woman with a bleeding disorder would be ritually impure. Anyone she touched would become impure until certain rituals were performed. For this woman to risk making this holy man impure would be a big-time act of faith. Maintaining faith even though Jesus has been gone a long time and has not yet returned is a major theme of Mark. We might also see a reference to Paul saying that the Jewish laws are no longer in effect. This sounds very much like a purposeful invention.
There are many miracle stories in Mark and I am not going to try to analyze each one of them. My original point was simply was that the presence of what appear to be early traditions in Mark suggest that we can get a glimpse of a real historic Jesus there.
Stephen said
Matt2239 wroteThere is more evidence for the miracles than against them. There are several written descriptions of miracles performed by Jesus which were committed to paper just a few short years after they happened. Even today, we have no scientific explanation for how these things happened. They called them miracles 2000 years ago. We cannot explain them today either. That would seem to indicate that they are now what they were then: miracles.
You don’t seem to understand what would actually constitute evidence. Let me recommend that you supplement your education by reading the Scottish philosopher David Hume who had some interesting things to say on the subject. Or if that’s too heavy-going for you check out Prof Ehrman’s debates with Mike Licona and William Lane Craig about the historical evidence for the Resurrection on YouTube. The Resurrection is the biggest miracle of all and if you could prove that historically then why quibble about the rest? (Of course if you could establish the Resurrection as a fact of history it would seem to be rather puzzling what the point of faith would be.)
You can’t say a miracle didn’t happen simply because you can’t explain it. Its inexplicability is captured in the meaning of the word “miracle” already. You can only say you don’t believe.
Nor can you establish that a miracle did happen by pointing out that you cannot think of a rational explanation for it. As Robert pointed out, maybe it’s all made up. After all, this is exactly what you believe about all the other religions and their miracles, right?
Who you gonna believe — those who wrote “do unto others,” “turn the other cheek,” “blessed are the nice people,” or Richard Carrier? Who’s afraid of that debate?
Well I’m not going to “believe” anyone without good reason to do so. I don’t find Carrier’s mythicism compelling and while the sayings attributed to Jesus do contain some wisdom, he inherited it all from the Hebrew prophets and wisdom literature.
Ehrman says historians attempt to establish what “probably” happened. Miracles, by definition, are improbable. But if you’re going on evidence of actual accounts of what happened, there are accounts within 30 years of Jesus’s crucifixion that he performed improbable miracles. The gospels, as impaired as some believe they are as historical documents, are the only accounts that exist.
Do you have any, any at all, documentary evidence that Jesus did not perform the alleged miracles or that he was in fact dead in his tomb on the morning when the Bible says he was not?
Stephen said
while the sayings attributed to Jesus do contain some wisdom, he inherited it all from the Hebrew prophets and wisdom literature.
I can’t name one Hebrew prophet from whom Jesus inherited any of his ideas. Can you?
Isn’t the fact that we all know the name Jesus of Nazareth while no one knows the names of Hebrew prophets from whom he inherited his ideas evidence that there was something very different about Jesus?
Maybe it was because Jesus could read and write Greek and wrote many of the chapters in the gospels, and because he selected disciples who could read and write Greek, while the Hebrew prophets could only write Hebrew? Oh no, no. That’s impossible. Scholars say Jesus PROBABLY didn’t read or write Greek, that his disciples PROBABLY didn’t read and write Greek, and that the earliest known gospel was PROBABLY not written down until 70 a.d. That’s a lot of probablies to hang an impossible on.
Ehrman says historians attempt to establish what “probably” happened. Miracles, by definition, are improbable. But if you’re going on evidence of actual accounts of what happened, there are accounts within 30 years of Jesus’s crucifixion that he performed improbable miracles. The gospels, as impaired as some believe they are as historical documents, are the only accounts that exist.
Do you have any, any at all, documentary evidence that Jesus did not perform the alleged miracles or that he was in fact dead in his tomb on the morning when the Bible says he was not?
You’re the one making a claim. The onus is on you to provide backup for your claim. My lack of belief is based on this lack of evidence. You haven’t made your case. I don’t see any reason to believe in anything without compelling reason to do so.
Stephen said
Ehrman says historians attempt to establish what “probably” happened. Miracles, by definition, are improbable. But if you’re going on evidence of actual accounts of what happened, there are accounts within 30 years of Jesus’s crucifixion that he performed improbable miracles. The gospels, as impaired as some believe they are as historical documents, are the only accounts that exist.Do you have any, any at all, documentary evidence that Jesus did not perform the alleged miracles or that he was in fact dead in his tomb on the morning when the Bible says he was not?
You’re the one making a claim. The onus is on you to provide backup for your claim. My lack of belief is based on this lack of evidence. You haven’t made your case. I don’t see any reason to believe in anything without compelling reason to do so.
You have no evidence at all that Jesus was dead in his tomb when the Bible says he was alive and not in his tomb. If you place a feather on one side of a scale and nothing on the other, in what direction will the scale tip?
Matt2239 said
I can’t name one Hebrew prophet from whom Jesus inherited any of his ideas. Can you?
Isn’t the fact that we all know the name Jesus of Nazareth while no one knows the names of Hebrew prophets from whom he inherited his ideas evidence that there was something very different about Jesus?
Here is a starter list.
Amos – concerned with disparity between rich and poor, people are measured by morality, ritualistic zeal means nothing compared to that
Hosea “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”, Jesus throws that quote at the ritual obsessive Pharisees
Elijah – wanted to purify morals and worship
Isaiah – opposed to the sins of luxury, fashion, and frivolity for which Jerusalem will be punished
Malachi – opposed to moral degeneracy, requires strict observance of the Torah not for its own sake but as a means of achieving spiritual service. He is big on the social duties Jews owe each other.
You have no evidence at all that Jesus was dead in his tomb when the Bible says he was alive and not in his tomb. If you place a feather on one side of a scale and nothing on the other, in what direction will the scale tip?
You’re the one making a claim. The onus is on you to provide backup for your claim. My lack of belief is based on this lack of evidence. You haven’t made your case. I don’t see any reason to believe in anything without compelling reason to do so.
He said.
Stephen said
You’re the one making a claim. The onus is on you to provide backup for your claim. My lack of belief is based on this lack of evidence. You haven’t made your case. I don’t see any reason to believe in anything without compelling reason to do so.
He said.
There are more than 6 billion books on the face of the earth that say Jesus rose from the dead. That’s even more objective evidence for the resurrection than for the moon landing. Your refusal to accept such a widely known and long established fact puts you in the category of a conspiracy theorist.
OldDogNewTricks said
Here is a starter list.
Amos – concerned with disparity between rich and poor, people are measured by morality, ritualistic zeal means nothing compared to that
Hosea “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”, Jesus throws that quote at the ritual obsessive Pharisees
Elijah – wanted to purify morals and worship
Isaiah – opposed to the sins of luxury, fashion, and frivolity for which Jerusalem will be punished
Malachi – opposed to moral degeneracy, requires strict observance of the Torah not for its own sake but as a means of achieving spiritual service. He is big on the social duties Jews owe each other.
Jesus had a lot of new ideas, and they have stood the test of time. Many of the names you name are known to people not because of what they said (ie, through Judaism), but because of what Jesus said (through the Old Testament/ New Testament Bible).
And it makes a difference. The Wright Brothers are known for the airplane, but a fellow named Lilienthal made some great strides toward that goal. Lilienthal’s ideas were valuable but they were not complete.
Matt2239 said
Jesus had a lot of new ideas, and they have stood the test of time. Many of the names you name are known to people not because of what they said (ie, through Judaism), but because of what Jesus said (through the Old Testament/ New Testament Bible).
And it makes a difference. The Wright Brothers are known for the airplane, but a fellow named Lilienthal made some great strides toward that goal. Lilienthal’s ideas were valuable but they were not complete.
What new ideas did Jesus have? Not Paul but Jesus as described in the Gospels. Seems to me that most of what he said was based on the OT, often by direct quote, and some works of the Jewish Apocrypha.
OldDogNewTricks said
What new ideas did Jesus have? Not Paul but Jesus as described in the Gospels. Seems to me that most of what he said was based on the OT, often by direct quote, and some works of the Jewish Apocrypha.
If they’d all been said before how come we don’t know who said what originally and everyone remembers Jesus instead?
Matt2239 said
If they’d all been said before how come we don’t know who said what originally and everyone remembers Jesus instead?
Because Paul did his best to invent a new Christianity that discarded the Law that Jesus preached. Over time the ‘Judaizers’ were pushed out. Christianity proselytizes. Judaism does not. It is not that everyone remembers the Pauline Jesus. It is that Christians do and there are a lot more Christians than Jews. Your username points to Jesus quoting from Leviticus. Do you hear Christians advertizing that fact?
OldDogNewTricks said
Because Paul did his best to invent a new Christianity that discarded the Law that Jesus preached. Over time the ‘Judaizers’ were pushed out. Christianity proselytizes. Judaism does not. It is not that everyone remembers the Pauline Jesus. It is that Christians do and there are a lot more Christians than Jews. Your username points to Jesus quoting from Leviticus. Do you hear Christians advertizing that fact?
My username is the first four letters of my name plus the first four digits of my street address. It’s a junk mail trick to create unique user codes when building databases.
But Matthew 22:39 is a good verse.
In Matthew 22:40, just after it, Jesus said, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” The commandment is referenced back to its Hebrew origin immediately.
The Hebrew prophets that Jesus studied had some good ideas, but opening the faith to all and spreading the faith widely were not two of them. If Jesus adopted a good idea from a Hebrew prophet, and urged its use by a larger group of people, and exhorted people to spread his message, then that is something unique.
I’m not aware that anyone was unwelcomed in the early years of Christianity. The Old Testament is always included with the New Testament, so no one has ever sought to deny Christianity’s roots in Judaism.
Robert said
Matt2239 said
The Hebrew prophets that Jesus studied had some good ideas, but opening the faith to all and spreading the faith widely were not two of them. …Untrue.
Whatever compelled you to give a one-word response?
I think the Hebrew prophets did have some good ideas.
The ideas for which Jesus is known though, like “render unto Caesar,” “do unto others,” “turn the other cheek,” “go the extra mile,” and “blessed are the nice people”, are very prominent throughout the New Testament. These ideas, although some may be found in the Old Testament, aren’t emphasized as much.
In fact, most people would not know of the Old Testament were it not for the fact that Jesus’s teachings are bound up with it as the New Testament.
Robert said
I simply did not have the time to look up the passages where the prophets certainly do speak about ‘opening the faith to all and spreading the faith widely’. Do you really need me to do this for you?
The book of Ruth was written to remind the Israelites that a Jew’s converted widow is still a member of the community. That was 400 years before Christ.
Paul’s chief contribution to the faith was to remind Jesus’s Jewish followers that the faith was open to all.
The book of Acts tells about how Jesus told his disciples to spread the gospel worldwide.
If Judaism was equally open and equally evangelical, then what’s your explanation for why Christianity spread so rapidly while Judaism didn’t? Are you saying Jesus was God and faith in him expanded because he was the real deal? Or maybe you’re saying that Christianity ripped off Judaism through cultural appropriation and succeeded because it is an ideology of greed and violence?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)