The Tension of Faith

So Faith's enthusiasm is evidence that creationism is true? I don't think so. He claimed that he did. Many Christians today claim that they did but if there is no change in their behavior - and there often isn't - then the claim is empty. Did Paul really change? Or was he just the same jerk with a different agenda? What reason do we have to think that he did? Did he convey Jesus' message accurately? There are messages older than Paul's that have survived. Are the Iliad and the Odyssey true?

Lets take this discussion over to Because The Bible Tells Me So where you and I were discussing human wisdom vs theological wisdom and if there was a distinction. (in 2007 mind you) this was ten years ago.

Firstly no one to the best of my knowledge has ever written an account of those 3 individuals that suggested that they are anything but fictional. The Gospels were obviously written with the intent that they be taken as historical. That is then evidence that can be accepted or rejected on it's own merits. That is true of all historical accounts. Some can be backed up by physical evidence to varying degrees. In this case we can start with the fact that all theists and deists for that matter believe in the idea that there is the miracle of creation, and this being the case other miraculous events can't be discounted. Also, we can look at the rise of the early Christian church as supporting evidence.In the end however it is a faith.

How is that obvious?

In many cases the accounts are very critical of the early leaders of the movement. The Epistles support the Gospel accounts so obviously they believed that the accounts were historical. The style in which they are written gives no indication that the accounts are anything but historical. The beginning of Luke essentially states that the accounts are to be taken as historical.

And the difference between your book and this book is....?

quote:

---

The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement, which adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2200 BC to AD 421.[1][2] It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.[3]

---

Book of Mormon - Wikipedia

The discussion is about what constitutes evidence. The fact that the "Book of Morman" was written with the intent that it be accepted as non-fictional is evidence in itself. Is there sufficient evidence in itself, or is there sufficient collaborating evidence to cause me to believe it? No. The fact still remains however that it is evidence.

We may be talking at cross purposes. In the paragraph you were responding to I was talking about the gospels as evidence of miracles, not the gospels as history. I set the context right at the beginning of my paragraph when I said, "Concerning miracles..." When I mentioned evidence about the real world and the scientific method I was returning to the context of miracles and wasn't talking about historical accounts. I don't think the scientific method has much to do with history, for example, whether Jesus asked the servants to fill the jars with water. The scientific method is much more appropriate for examining the scientific claims you want to make for the gospels, primarily that physical phenomena know as miracles exist and have happened, for example, that Jesus turned the water into wine.--Percy

Well spotted :-) Yes, but the question is of what. We can both agree that it's evidence that someone wrote a book. In this case the evidence is far stronger than the the bible as we actually know who wrote it. It's evidence, we agree. We probably both agree that it's evidence of fraud.But the only thing we're interested in is whether what is written in it is true. You find the 'evidence' of the bible pursuasive but not the 'evidence, in the BoM.Now I accept that we know much more about how the BoM came about than the bible which has given us both reasonable cause for doubt - but they both claim to be true. You say that there is strong evidence for one but not for the other.The point is that we know more about the provenance of the BoM but trust it less than the bible even though they make similar claims. Now suppose the BoM was 1,000 years old and lacking our modern day evidence. I'm guessing you'd still not trust it. What is the difference between the 'evidence, that makes you dismiss one but not the other? Assuming the providence equal.Our point is that for something to be evidence, it has to be evidence of something specific and it has to be more than something outrageous written in a book.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

They talk about miracles. Historical accounts don't talk about miracles. So does a lot of fiction. Take The Day of the Jackal as an example.

Or 1066 & All That that contains a memorable history of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates.

Could you please describe how a miracle could ever be evidenced in a scientific way or "real world" way? Because I don't think it's possible. I think miracles can only be known by testimony of witnesses, except of course to the witnesses themselves. Meaning: If written testimony isn't acceptable evidence of miracles nobody could ever believe in a miracle even if there are many real miracles.

Perhaps you can explain how anyone can know that any miracle happened?How does one "witness" a miracle?

People saw Lazarus alive, then saw him dead, saw him wrapped for burial and buried, smelled him when he started to stink, saw Jesus come and command him to get up, saw him walk out of the tombwhen Jesus raised him.People saw the water pots at the wedding, saw them filled with water, saw Jesus cause one to change to wine, saw the wine immediately after they saw the water and Jesus turning it to wine.there were thousands of hungry people listening to Jesus. A few loaves of bread and a few fish were all anybody had to feed them. All the people saw thousands of loaves and fishes being passed to the people when Jesus commanded it.People saw dead people and then saw them raised to life by Jesus.People saw very sick people and saw them cured by Jesus.People knew a certain man had been blind from birth, and then saw that man able to see after jesus cured him.People knew a certain man had beenlame from birth, and then saw that man able to walk after jesus cured him.All the Israelites saw the pillars of cloud by day and fire by night.All the Israelites and a bunch of Egyptians too saw the Red Sea separate and expose dry land that the people walked on completely across the sea.\There were people watching when Elisha poured water all over the meat sacrifice and the altar and prayed God, who them sent fire down from heaven to consume it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Could you please describe how a miracle could ever be evidenced in a scientific way or "real world" way?

---

That depends on the miracle. A miraculous healing could be well-documented through medical records. If an organic condition - one that doesn’t have a record of sometimes reversing itself - were properly documented and if it were found to have been cured (regrowing an amputated limb is a good one) then we’d have evidence.The Randi Foundation cane up with some decent tests for claimed paranormal abilities.At a less ambitious level, if there were really good examples of Biblical prophecy (where we can confirm that the prediction was made before the event, where the prediction isn’t too vague, where the prediction came true without resorting to creative interpretations etc.) then that would be pretty good. Oddly people do seem to claim to have good examples but we never see any. I wonder why.