|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Modulous writes: You 'guessed' right. The fact that this disciple is present for the interaction between Peter and Jesus, is put at the Last Supper and various other scenes suggests more than an implication of being an eyewitness:
quote: 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.
The Gospel certainly says it was a disciple, and a very particular (though never identified) disciple, but the whole Gospel is a story filled with so much hooey that it's difficult to associate credibility with any of it. We agree on the credibility of the evidence. 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.
But a text that proclaims to be the testimony of an eyewitness is evidence even if we, on examination decide a) The eyewitness is unreliableand/or b) The testifier was not actually an eyewitness 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'm not trying to persuade you to agree that John *is* true. I'm just saying how one might go from the evidence for John's authorship to trusting John as a source. The relationship of evidence and faith. There is one, even if you personally don't think the evidence is of such a nature that it can justify the faith - the trust. 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: 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.
I did say 'if the story is remotely true' - the conditional was there to avoid this objection. Your view of this is not important. My point here was to say that in the example you provide - the 12 disciples and 12 tribes - there are some possibilities: 1) The story is true, but it isn't a coincidence because Jesus deliberately chose 12 as a conscious reflection of the 12 tribes2) The story is false and the 12 were chosen deliberately by the author for the same reasons. 3) 12 were chosen deliberately by the author because it would be more appealing and convincing to his Jewish audience.
With the Egypt story - Jesus' journey to Egypt is not engineered by Jesus so option 1 in this case is out. So if the story is somewhat true (ie. the history is of a mundane Jewish preacher who had myth erected around him later) - we don't suppose it was a conscious effort by Jesus. He was a babe at the time. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
PaulK writes: The things I was referring to came from Message 647 as should be obvious if you follow the context of the discussion. If you follow the discussion back, you only have to go back as far as Message 676 to see where you went adrift.
If your definition is at odds with the criterion you put forward then that’s just another example of incoherence. Yes, if it were at odds, but it's not.
Except that the point is a major point of the discussion - even if we restrict it to my exchanges with him and he has repeatedly failed to even notice it when it is explicitly laid out for him. Oftentimes when you use the phrase "the point", it isn't clear what point you're referring to. Like now.
But as we know you were objecting to my point that ancient astronomical records were useful evidence in dating. 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.
Obviously you do insist that they are not evidence, yet I cannot see any reason why. The mere possibility of error hardly seems sufficient. 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?
quote: The evasion and even dishonesty in service of an obviously ridiculous view seem to qualify 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.
The written word is obviously a product of events in the real world. What you mean! I presume is that an account of events is not a direct product of those events. 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.
Nevertheless the idea that there is even an absolute distinction between information and evidence is silly. 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?
quote: What makes you think that is necessary? 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?
quote: In other words it is useful as evidence of Christian beliefs even if it is false. Do you see why a blanket dismissal of written accounts as evidence is silly ? No, that wouldn't be an accurate "in other words" consistent with how I was trying to distinguish between evidence and the written word.
quote: Obviously it is an example of the written word being useful evidence. I'm still not clear on what dating correlations you're referring to.
quote: So, instead of insisting that the written word is never evidence maybe you should concede that in some cases it is pretty good evidence. THAT would be progress. What's wrong with calling it fairly reliable information?
quote: Making obviously contradictory claims followed by a non-sequitur is hardly useful discussion. 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.
Firstly you have done nothing to establish that it is likely that the events never happened. I think showing that events actually happened requires positive evidence, not the absence of negative evidence.
Even if you did, that does not address the question of whether my explanations involve likely events that are adequate to explain what little we are given. As I've said, for all you know you're explaining events that never happened.
We are not given clear miracles, we are given events that are taken as miraculous. Not sure what you're saying here.
Which comes back to the point - if likely events can adequately account for what is given why should we not prefer that explanation to one that assumes that the accounts are pure fiction ? Why should we? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
You left off the closing part, "and we know that his testimony is true." Well I included back in Message 660, if that helps.
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. I don't disagree.
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. Well...yes - that's what this particular argument has been about.
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 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'.
I have no problem with faith, just with claims of evidence where none exists. 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.
And I view faith that requires evidence as not faith at all. 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.
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. 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'
I did say 'if the story is remotely true' - the conditional was there to avoid this objection. Your view of this is not important. My point here was to say that in the example you provide - the 12 disciples and 12 tribes - there are some possibilities:
3) 12 were chosen deliberately by the author because it would be more appealing and convincing to his Jewish audience 1) The story is true, but it isn't a coincidence because Jesus deliberately chose 12 as a conscious reflection of the 12 tribes2) The story is false and the 12 were chosen deliberately by the author for the same reasons. 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.
Jesus was a babe in the story, but wasn't necessarily a babe when the story was written 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.
If Jesus was a real person, and if he played a role in constructing his story, the Egypt story could have been his composition. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I could be convinced of miracles by scientifically replicable evidence. Which of course could never be available for miracles so you've effectively eliminated any way you might ever possibly learn about miracles.
Stories written by believers wouldn't do it for me. Why should I consider the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine, which is just a story in the Bible, any more evidence of a miracle than the splitting of the moon, which is just a story in the Koran? Gosh I guess you just can't. Oh well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
T he 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? 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.
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?
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.). No comprendo. Acts IS historical evidence. But I don't get what you're saying in any case.
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). Sorry, not getting your point.
There is no historical evidence from what I have seen (the Bible stories exist but absent any external corroboration for the said miracles). 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What miracles are you talking about anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: The claim - silly as it is - is hardly the worst thing.
quote: If you are being unintentionally evasive and dishonest then you have a problem.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 is using it as evidence while refusing to call it evidence.
quote: 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: 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: 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: I’d say on the grounds that it is the more plausible explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: 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: NOW
quote: Where is the shred of evidence from the historical documents?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
More miracles
quote: Where is the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024