The Tension of Faith

quote:

---

The Bible IS full of evidence of miracles and you'll never know it. There is really nothing to discuss with you. Futility upon futility.

​

I am certainly glad there are a lot of people who do know how to judge evidence rightly.

​

Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed.

---

Where is there evidence that there actually were all these thousands of witness to these miracles?And these people (WITNESSES!) were all confined to (a narrow miracle zone) in Palestine alone.It seems that all these stories of witnesses, in Acts, only have caused people to discredit the stories when there is seemingly little historical evidence of these miracles even being notice by any of the involved parties (Jews, Romans, various observers, etc.).Acts has stories where a massive slice of the Palestinian population would have been a witness to. And many were not only witnesses to the miracles but in fact also were described as Christians (and often because of the miracles).There is no historical evidence from what I have seen (the Bible stories exist but absent any external corroboration for the said miracles).

You left off the closing part, "and we know that his testimony is true."I suppose others will argue that this is just the way people wrote back then, but to me it looks like hooey written for rubes. "Hey, trust me, would I lie?" Yes, there are elements that imply that the disciple Jesus loved wrote the Gospel of John, but they're rather clumsy and heavy handed, and taken as a whole John seems like a typical piece of religious writing designed to serve a community rather than pass down an accurate history. Well, as you know I have a different perspective on this. We might agree on the degree of credibility, but we probably don't agree that it is evidence of what actually took place in the real world. I suspect we disagree about whether to label it "evidence" or not. Yeah, I think we disagree on what to label evidence. I would label the Gospel of John a religious text rather than evidence. If there's anything true in it, other than the obvious things like "Jerusalem existed" and so forth, we have no way of knowing what parts. I have no problem with faith, just with claims of evidence where none exists. And I view faith that requires evidence as not faith at all. The definition of faith I like is found in this sentence taken from here:

quote:

---

Faith is acceptance of what we cannot see but feel deep within our hearts.

---

Interestingly, Faith has given a somewhat similar definition several times (e.g., Message 681, "Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed."), even though at other times she has insisted that faith be supported with evidence, which is what you seem to be saying, too. 3) 12 were chosen deliberately by the author because it would be more appealing and convincing to his Jewish audience. Jesus was a babe in the story, but wasn't necessarily a babe when the story was written. If Jesus was a real person, and if he played a role in constructing his story, the Egypt story could have been his composition.--Percy

If you follow the discussion back, you only have to go back as far as Message 676 to see where you went adrift. Yes, if it were at odds, but it's not. Oftentimes when you use the phrase "the point", it isn't clear what point you're referring to. Like now. No, I wasn't. Honestly, I didn't know what your point was by mentioning dating. At first I believed it was a reference to Tycho Brahe's date/time entries and wasn't something particularly important to the discussion, but then you kept mentioning it so I began to wonder. Well, as I said, my particular perspective doesn't seem to be working for you, and it seems to be making you upset. If you're so strongly opposed to not viewing the written word as evidence then why don't we work out something else? Ah. Well, no evasion or dishonesty was intended. Obviously we see things differently, but if the only characterization of the situation that you're open to is that you're completely in the right and me and Tangle (is there anyone else?) are completely in the wrong, then finding our way toward common ground isn't going to be possible. Yes, that's correct. I thought I already said this in messages to you, but if not let me repeat something I've said several times before to someone, that I see the recording of evidence after it has passed through the human perceptual system as the equivalent of passing reality through a meat grinder, i.e., not very reliable and not properly evidence anymore. Okay, so let's find other terminology. I originally walked down this road in response to Faith's assertion that the Bible is evidence of its own truth and accuracy. What would be a good response? You don't think people are interested in knowing what in a written account is true and what is false? That in some cases it's essential, such as a suspect's statement? No, that wouldn't be an accurate "in other words" consistent with how I was trying to distinguish between evidence and the written word. I'm still not clear on what dating correlations you're referring to. What's wrong with calling it fairly reliable information? Can't tell what's bothering you this time, though I did accidentally leave the "not" out again, so I've inserted it in the above quote. I think showing that events actually happened requires positive evidence, not the absence of negative evidence. As I've said, for all you know you're explaining events that never happened. Not sure what you're saying here. Why should we?--Percy

Well I included back in Message 660, if that helps. I don't disagree. Well...yes - that's what this particular argument has been about. I don't see why a religious text cannot be considered evidential. Suspect, sure - but evidential. Evidence doesn't mean 'true', or even 'likely true'. Evidence is some data left behind that we can interpret. The Gospels are this. You interpret the data to mean 'religious texts', that's what the texts are evidence of using your methods. Others assess the data as being more than just 'religious texts' but also 'reliable testimony of historical events'. The Gospel of John *is* the evidence, in this particular case.Is the Code of Hammarabi historical evidence? I say yes. Even if there are a variety of supernatural claims in it, that I don't accept as supported by corroborating evidence. If the Gospel of John had corroborating evidence you'd find whatever was corroborated more plausible (for instance, the existence of Jerusalem). John alone is uncorroborated, further evidence may lend support to it. Just because there isn't corroborating evidence in some situation doesn't mean the original data is not evidence. Again Anne Frank wrote of some specific things for which there is no corroboration, but those things she wrote are still evidence even so.You can also have conflicting evidence. Two things which seem to contradict one another. Really? I have faith in my bank. This is partly to the fact that they have consistently provided my money when asked, the government also provides a guarantee in case the bank does suddenly fail etc etc. The evidence justifies my faith.I have faith in this here bridge. It has stood for fifty years, and I know there are people whose job it is to inspect bridges for safety concerns. I have evidence that leads to faith.I have faith in my wife. If she tells me she met an extraordinary person doing an extraordinary thing, even though I have no corroborating evidence for this marvellous and improbable meeting - I have evidence of the trustworthiness of my wife's reporting and so I have faith her report is accurate.I said it to Faith earlier. If someone claims you murdered another person, you would not only not have faith in them, but you would implore the police/courts/jury to be likewise skeptical. That witnesses' spouse however, may well have faith in their testimony....based on evidence.Christians wouldn't believe what they believe if there was no Bible. They regard the Bible as being reliable enough to justify faith. Their opinion on the trustworthiness of the Bible - the evidence - is what justifies their faith. If they thought the Bible was unreliable to the point of being meaningless...they likely wouldn't be Christian. The point being, that trusting the words of witnesses is a good thing, in John/Jesus' opinion. The witnesses are not direct experience of the resurrection, but they are evidence of it - and the point of the doubting Thomas story is to say 'trust in the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection'. It isn't saying that 'you are blessed if you believe in my resurrection even though you have absolutely no reason to do so. Like the natives in 'America' right at this minute who have no access to any of the reports of my resurrection'. It's just saying 'the witness reports of the disciples is good enough evidence upon which to believe and demonstrating that trust in these good people is a blessed act' That's just option two with an explanation. I didn't include the explanation as I assumed we both know that reflecting the 12 tribes of the Old in the New Testament would be appealing. The same kind of explanation could also be appended to option 1. Right, but I'm talking about the going to Egypt (ie if the story is somewhat true). If Jesus did go to Egypt it wasn't Jesus' choice to do so. Yeah, I have no idea what your point is. If the Egypt story is true, Jesus did not invent it, nor was going to Egypt his idea. If the Egypt story is false, someone invented it. Whether it was Jesus or Judas or whoever - it doesn't matter. Agreed?

Which of course could never be available for miracles so you've effectively eliminated any way you might ever possibly learn about miracles. Gosh I guess you just can't. Oh well.

Gosh, there it is in writing in black and white. But yeah, the evidence is probably mostly in a gracious ability to trust the people writing such accounts, and if you can't, if you keep coming up with reasons why you can never ever trust people who would write something like the Bible, then you just have no evidence. The glories experienced by those who do are forever lost to you. Gosh I guess so. Pretty much disqualifies the whole thing then, hey? No comprendo. Acts IS historical evidence. But I don't get what you're saying in any case. Sorry, not getting your point. Yeah I kind of think that is by design. The evidence is sufficient, and certainly is historical evidence, but only for those who don't make up absurd conditions for recognizing it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact of the matter is that there were Gospel Harmonies from the 2nd century on. It wasn't until about 200 A.D. that we started seeing evidence of the Gospel of John in these harmonies.The earlier ones seemed to only have Matthew, Mark, and Luke.John the Apostle as the author of a Gospel was first attested by Irenaeus (around 180, plus the Muratorian fragment from around 170), and the first quotation was about 150 by Justin Martyr.Papias seemed to be saying, in a few sentences, that the Apostle John and John the Elder were two different people.Eusebius and Dionysius said that there were two different tombs (in their day!) for each individual.The Epistles of John are written from The Elder. The same author as the Gospel author?Different people.Tradition places John's writing at about 100 AD.Long after the life of Jesus, and at best, it seemed to be some Greek(?) guy from Ephesus (John the Elder). If John actually wrote it, it was in Greek.Another Greek Gospel from the early second century.No "Bible" that the Jewish Christians used, that is for sure.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

"And these people (WITNESSES!) were all confined to (a narrow miracle zone) in Palestine alone."

​

Gosh I guess so. Pretty much disqualifies the whole thing then, hey?

---

I was saying that the numbers of people witnessing miracles of Christians in Acts seems to be nearly (like) a massive chunk of the overall population in Palestine.A big percentage.So why no historical records of the miracles?Josephus didn't mention any miracles, did he?He knew of James and Jesus.Nobody else recorded them, did they?Why is it a shock that people are skeptical?

What miracles are you talking about anyway?

Shock? No shock. Amazement maybe, at the convoluted stupidities involved in the massive effort to discredit the simple facts that so many millions have feasted upon for millennia, that transformed the world from a pagan nigntmare into a civilized and generous place (before the pagan nightmare started closing in again)..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If you follow the discussion back, you only have to go back as far as Message 676 to see where you went adrift.

---

Obviously I didn’t. You took a statement out of context, and tried to rebut it by citing something it wasn’t talking about. That is fact.

quote:

---

Yes, if it were at odds, but it's not.

---

Your criterion only allows things that are certainly true to be considered evidence. And you explicitly said that your definition contradicts that. So obviously something you said isn’t true.

quote:

---

Oftentimes when you use the phrase "the point", it isn't clear what point you're referring to. Like now.

---

Unless you are going to insist on multi-level quotes some things have to be worked out from context, which may include following the thread back. If you do that you will find it is perfectly clear.

quote:

---

No, I wasn't. Honestly, I didn't know what your point was by mentioning dating.

---

You don’t understand why I would respond to the claim that writings can’t be evidence by producing an example where written records ARE useful evidence ?

quote:

---

Well, as I said, my particular perspective doesn't seem to be working for you, and it seems to be making you upset. If you're so strongly opposed to not viewing the written word as evidence then why don't we work out something else?

---

The claim - silly as it is - is hardly the worst thing.

quote:

---

Ah. Well, no evasion or dishonesty was intended.

---

If you are being unintentionally evasive and dishonest then you have a problem.

quote:

---

Okay, so let's find other terminology. I originally walked down this road in response to Faith's assertion that the Bible is evidence of its own truth and accuracy. What would be a good response?

---

The sensible response is that the Bible is full of evidence of its unreliability. The Bible contains errors and inaccuracies and myths and legends. Even the better parts are heavily biased. The Bible at its best doesn’t live up to the standards of the best ancient historians.

quote:

---

You don't think people are interested in knowing what in a written account is true and what is false? That in some cases it's essential, such as a suspect's statement?

---

And another evasion. The question is whether a written document can be useful as evidence in some ways without caring about the truth of its claims. And the answer is yes.

quote:

---

No, that wouldn't be an accurate "in other words" consistent with how I was trying to distinguish between evidence and the written word.

---

That’s probably because your distinction doesn’t make sense. Obviously if you agree that 1 Corinthians gives an accurate picture of early Christian belief then it is evidence that early Christians believed that, by any reasonable understanding of the word evidence.

quote:

---

I'm still not clear on what dating correlations you're referring to.

---

Then maybe you should have asked instead of trying to dismiss the point with irrelevancies. Seriously, ancient records of known astronomical events are often dated. Using those dates we can relate their dating systems to ours.

quote:

---

What's wrong with calling it fairly reliable information?

---

What’s wrong is using it as evidence while refusing to call it evidence.

quote:

---

I think showing that events actually happened requires positive evidence, not the absence of negative evidence.

---

Then you are putting the cart before the horse. I was talking about a priori likelihood - which doesn’t need establishing that the events actually happened. In fact it is useful information in making a judgement of whether they did actually happen.

quote:

---

As I've said, for all you know you're explaining events that never happened.

---

Which is, again, irrelevant to the question. The question is whether the events in my explanation are ones which would be likely to occur and adequate to explain the account. Whether the events in the account happened or not doesn’t affect that,

quote:

---

Not sure what you're saying here.

---

I’m saying that rejecting the events in the grounds that they are miraculous is a mistake since they are not clearly miraculous. We reject the idea that people actually saw Elvis Presley after his death - but we don’t reject the claim that some people thought that they saw Elvis Presley after his death.

quote:

---

Why should we?

---

I’d say on the grounds that it is the more plausible explanation.

quote:

---

What miracles are you talking about anyway?

---

Take the Samaritans, who did not get along with the Jerusalem authorities (or hardly any mainstream Jewish folks, it seems?)Jesus healed the 10 lepers (Luke 17:11-20).Jesus told them he was the Messiah in John 4:1-26.Now read the text of Acts.

quote:

---

Acts 8New International Version (NIV)

​

8 And Saul approved of their killing him.

​

The Church Persecuted and Scattered

​

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

​

Philip in Samaria

​

4 Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. 5 Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there. 6 When the crowds heard Philip and saw the signs he performed, they all paid close attention to what he said. 7 For with shrieks, impure spirits came out of many, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was great joy in that city.

​

Simon the Sorcerer

​

9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, This man is rightly called the Great Power of God. 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

---

NOW

quote:

---

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

---

Where is the shred of evidence from the historical documents?

More miracles

quote:

---

Acts 4New International Version (NIV)

​

Peter and John Before the Sanhedrin

​

4 The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.

​

5 The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family. 7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: By what power or what name did you do this?

​

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is

​

‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’[a]

​

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

​

13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 What are we going to do with these men? they asked. Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.

---

Where is the evidence?

The Book of Acts IS evidence, it's historical evidence. I really don't know what your point is. There should be something other than the Bookof Acts as evidence? Why?

quote:

---

The Book of Acts IS evidence, it's historical evidence. I really don't know what your point is. There should be something other than the Bookof Acts as evidence? Why?

---

5000 Christians and growing in Jerusalem around 30 A.D.?Miracles galore.All of Jerusalem hearing about them?No records, outside the circa 90 AD Acts of the Apostles?The Jewish authorities were that good at covering up history?What about the Romans?The Samaritans weren't influenced by the Jewish authorities?Where is any evidence that a massive chunk of those folks become Christians totally absent?Why didn't they stay Christian?