Accuracy of the Scriptures Concerning Miracles and the Game of Telephone

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Two things. One is the fact that raising someone from the dead is still a pretty big thing that surely would have been told to a lot more. Second is based on some new information I may be wrong with Josephus. He may have well written about a Jesus but that in no way makes what happened in the Gospels true. Just that there was a guy named Jesus that was claimed to be the Christ who gathered a following.
 
NM505StKate said:
I honestly never heard that Luke was a physician, same with Mark.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you keep your questions forefront in your mind but be open and willing to look for completely satisfactory answers to them.

You cannot jump to conclusions about the reliability of Scripture based upon scant knowledge of the situation. At least be willing to acknowledge what you don’t know as a means of filling in those missing details.

There are plenty of good resources on the Internet. A very good one is here.

youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy/playlists

In particular the playlists on alleged Bible errors, Bible contradictions refuted and the case for the Resurrection.

Also search for talks by Peter J. Williams, N.T. Wright and Richard Bauckham on YouTube.
There is so much that people don’t know in terms of where the scholarship has gone in the past 20 years.
 
NM505StKate said:
Two things. One is the fact that raising someone from the dead is still a pretty big thing that surely would have been told to a lot more.
Click to expand...
If you are speaking of Lazarus, I suspect that would have been dwarfed by the awareness of the Resurrection of Jesus which was, in fact, a huge thing since the news it garnered threatened, for example, to put the businesses supported by the major pagan temple dedicated to Artemis at Ephesus out of business.

This was no small thing because paganism was no small thing at the time. Yet businesses were threatened - so there was massive economic impact.

Recall that Lazarus was raised by Jesus – wouldn’t it be more significant that the one who raised Lazarus was himself raised from the dead? Considering that, I would suspect that the attention over Lazarus’ raising would have been transferred to Jesus, especially if he did other miracles after raising Lazarus and then resurrected in glorious form himself. Wouldn’t Lazarus have been largely “forgotten” given all that followed?

The rapid growth of the early Church is the result of the resurrection of Jesus being “no small thing.”

Tacitus reports that “a vast multitude" of Christians were convicted of being Christian by Nero following the fire in Rome (AD 64.) That was less than 30 years after Jesus crucifixion and in Rome - why did Christianity spread so fast in a world where religious beliefs were legion? What was the special selling point, if not the resurrection of Jesus and credible testimonies that convinced hearers?
"Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, **a vast multitude were convicted, **not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of “hating the human race.”
Click to expand...
 
NM505StKate #43
Two things. One is the fact that raising someone from the dead is still a pretty big thing that surely would have been told to a lot more. Second is based on some new information I may be wrong with Josephus. He may have well written about a Jesus but that in no way makes what happened in the Gospels true. Just that there was a guy named Jesus that was claimed to be the Christ who gathered a following.
Click to expand...
How typical – to evade the testimony of Eusebius quoting Quadratus in post #14!

Such a continued disregard for history is pathetic.

As Fr William Most shows:
FACT 1: There was a man called Jesus.
FACT 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent by God.
FACT 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Now the mere fact of working miracles would not prove that Jesus was a messenger sent from God. It is probable that God at times worked miracles even for good pagans. But Jesus often appealed to His miracles as proof of His mission and teaching (see, among these, Matthew 11:2-5, Luke 7:20-22, Mark 2:9-11). Now God is the ultimate source of the miraculous power; but He, being Truth, cannot provide such power as proof of a falsehood. So Jesus’ claims were proved true. In fact, He proved that He could even forgive sins. A most remarkable messenger!

Many of Jesus’ miracles could not be explained away as being the result of suggestion. No suggestion will multiply loaves and fishes or cure a man who was born blind. There is a hysterical kind of blindness that can come on later in life, which can be cured by suggestion. Nor would suggestion call out from the tomb a man dead for four days. And there have been many modern miracles, for example at Lourdes, that have been checked to the hilt by science. These miracles are in continuity with His miracles. Often they occur during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament, thus showing His Real Presence there. The Real Presence is proclaimed only by the Catholic Church, through continuity of ordination, going all the way back to Jesus Himself.

FACT 4: Crowds followed Christ. But He had an inner circle to whom He spoke more intimately. This is merely what we would expect.
FACT 5: He told His followers to continue His teaching.
FACT 6: Jesus gave the message that God would protect that teaching: “He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

In summary then, we see a group that is commissioned to teach by a messenger sent by God, and promised God’s protection for that teaching. These observations are made without treating the Scriptures as inspired. Now we not only intellectually may but are intellectually driven to believe what the body teaches. That body can then assure us that those ancient documents, used without knowing they are inspired, really have God as their author. And that body, the Church, can also tell us that the messenger sent by God is really God Himself. And, of course, it can guarantee countless other truths for us.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=3
 
Abu said:
How typical – to evade the testimony of Eusebius quoting Quadratus in post #14!

Such a continued disregard for history is pathetic.

As Fr William Most shows:
FACT 1: There was a man called Jesus.
FACT 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent by God.
FACT 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Now the mere fact of working miracles would not prove that Jesus was a messenger sent from God. It is probable that God at times worked miracles even for good pagans. But Jesus often appealed to His miracles as proof of His mission and teaching (see, among these, Matthew 11:2-5, Luke 7:20-22, Mark 2:9-11). Now God is the ultimate source of the miraculous power; but He, being Truth, cannot provide such power as proof of a falsehood. So Jesus’ claims were proved true. In fact, He proved that He could even forgive sins. A most remarkable messenger!

Many of Jesus’ miracles could not be explained away as being the result of suggestion. No suggestion will multiply loaves and fishes or cure a man who was born blind. There is a hysterical kind of blindness that can come on later in life, which can be cured by suggestion. Nor would suggestion call out from the tomb a man dead for four days. And there have been many modern miracles, for example at Lourdes, that have been checked to the hilt by science. These miracles are in continuity with His miracles. Often they occur during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament, thus showing His Real Presence there. The Real Presence is proclaimed only by the Catholic Church, through continuity of ordination, going all the way back to Jesus Himself.

FACT 4: Crowds followed Christ. But He had an inner circle to whom He spoke more intimately. This is merely what we would expect.
FACT 5: He told His followers to continue His teaching.
FACT 6: Jesus gave the message that God would protect that teaching: “He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

In summary then, we see a group that is commissioned to teach by a messenger sent by God, and promised God’s protection for that teaching. These observations are made without treating the Scriptures as inspired. Now we not only intellectually may but are intellectually driven to believe what the body teaches. That body can then assure us that those ancient documents, used without knowing they are inspired, really have God as their author. And that body, the Church, can also tell us that the messenger sent by God is really God Himself. And, of course, it can guarantee countless other truths for us.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=3
Click to expand...
If there were so many witnesses and so much evidence where is it? There should be enough to convince even the most harden skeptic but no one sees it.
 
NM505StKate said:
If there were so many witnesses and so much evidence where is it? There should be enough to convince even the most harden skeptic but no one sees it.
Click to expand...
What evidence there is and what evidence the “hardened skeptic” chooses to see or accept as evidence are two very different things.

As to whether “no one sees it,” THAT would appear to be a case of projecting your mental states onto others. There are many who do see it and are convinced.

Why “hardened skeptics” do not see it is a whole other story.

Let me give an example from your posts…

You stated (roughly translated) that we have no Gospel manuscripts any closer than 300 to 400 years after the events occurred. It so happens that the earliest manuscript fragments of the Gospels date to AD 135-150. The earliest being a fragment from the Gospel of John –one which is completely faithful to the text of later copies, implying that the Gospel was not substantially changed. That would mean the earliest manuscripts of John are only 45-60 years after they were possibly written (if you accept the latest dating of John to AD 90.) Given that the papyrus these texts were written on is only supposed to last 100 years or so, it is truly amazing that any parts of them survived at all.

So we could turn the question back to you: Why have you, a hardened skeptic, not seen and accepted the evidence that refutes your version of the narrative that the Gospels were only written 300-400 years after events when the evidence clearly shows they were written much, much earlier?

Is that the fault of the evidence or the fault of the skeptic for not being thorough enough in locating and considering the evidence they don’t even know exists?

Perhaps the lesson to be taken is that we should not make pronouncements about what is the case before we have done a robust search for ALL the evidence. What do you think?
 
NM505StKate said:
Oh not this dude. Please. He has been refuted plenty of times.
Click to expand...
Refuted and disputed are two very different things.

Besides that I don’t see any attempt on your part to “refute” the case being made.
NM505StKate said:
Lazarus was only raised in the Gospel of John. Why was this not mentioned in other Gospels especially, if by your claim, there were eye witnesses.
Click to expand...
This was answered by RIchard Bauckham and discussed earlier.

Being eye witnesses to events may implicate those individuals who were, indeed, eye witnesses AND create problems for those who were identified in the eye witness accounts. What you fail to take into account is the historical situation that the early Church found itself in and what those witnesses could have openly reported in early written documents that would have been publicly accessible.
 
NM505StKate said:
If there were so many witnesses and so much evidence where is it? There should be enough to convince even the most harden skeptic but no one sees it.
Click to expand...
Here is a summary of what evidence there is and why it is strong…

youtu.be/6zn1mvL4oHA

A longer, more detailed version is here…

youtu.be/wiWKifMu6f8

The question to be asked (again) is: Why are some hardened skeptics so hardened that they cannot see the embarrassment of rich evidence for what it is?

And, please… …no more “that dude” responses as if the mere typing of THAT phrase by itself counts as evidence.

Even a soft and mushy skeptic wouldn’t accept it as evidence, but you seem to think we all should be so willing.
 
NM505StKate said:
If there were so many witnesses and so much evidence where is it? There should be enough to convince even the most harden skeptic but no one sees it.
Click to expand...
According to Jesus Himself, “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not listen to someone who has risen from the dead.”
 
Peter_Plato said:
Here is a summary of what evidence there is and why it is strong…

youtu.be/6zn1mvL4oHA

A longer, more detailed version is here…

youtu.be/wiWKifMu6f8

The question to be asked (again) is: Why are some hardened skeptics so hardened that they cannot see the embarrassment of rich evidence for what it is?

And, please… …no more “that dude” responses as if the mere typing of THAT phrase by itself counts as evidence.

Even a soft and mushy skeptic wouldn’t accept it as evidence, but you seem to think we all should be so willing.
Click to expand...
Rich evidence where? Please tell me or show me the evidence.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Refuted and disputed are two very different things.

Besides that I don’t see any attempt on your part to “refute” the case being made.

This was answered by RIchard Bauckham and discussed earlier.

Being eye witnesses to events may implicate those individuals who were, indeed, eye witnesses AND create problems for those who were identified in the eye witness accounts. What you fail to take into account is the historical situation that the early Church found itself in and what those witnesses could have openly reported in early written documents that would have been publicly accessible.
Click to expand...
So where they scared to come forward? Yet the Apostles wrote about it via the Gospels? Why didn’t Paul make mention of some of the miracles in his epistles? Which Paul wrote the epistles?
 
NM505StKate said:
So where they scared to come forward? Yet the Apostles wrote about it via the Gospels? Why didn’t Paul make mention of some of the miracles in his epistles? Which Paul wrote the epistles?
Click to expand...
Because the Spirit did not inspire him to.
 
NM505StKate said:
So where they scared to come forward? Yet the Apostles wrote about it via the Gospels? Why didn’t Paul make mention of some of the miracles in his epistles? Which Paul wrote the epistles?
Click to expand...
You are asking that question of a man who persecuted Christians and had them killed, and then he joins them with such enthusiasm that he endured a lifetime of hardship and suffered death for his belief.

And you are asking why Paul doesn’t talk about miracles.🤷
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CHRDAT.TXT

Luke is not wrong in saying Quirinius was govenor of Syria when the census occured and Matthew is not wrong in saying Herod was in power when Jesus was born. Herod died 1 B.C.
Click to expand...
Two different time periods though. One says Jesus was born when the census was being taken, which is another matter, and the other during Herod. Problem is that you can’t have Jesus being born and then running off to Egypt when Joseph has to go to his home town for a census. The story makes it sound like it happened at the same time. Was he born in a house or an animal trough? Which of the genealogies is correct, Matthew or Luke because both are inconsistent? Why did two of the Gospels not say a word about the birth? John didn’t give two figs about it and Mark jumps to the baptism by John, never mentions they are related.
 
clem456 said:
You are asking that question of a man who persecuted Christians and had them killed, and then he joins them with such enthusiasm that he endured a lifetime of hardship and suffered death for his belief.

And you are asking why Paul doesn’t talk about miracles.🤷
Click to expand...
The Paul of the epistles doesn’t read nor write like the one in Acts. It is like two totally different people. Also I mean the epistles accredited to Paul as legit.
 
NM505StKate said:
The Paul of the epistles doesn’t read nor write like the one in Acts. It is like two totally different people. Also I mean the epistles accredited to Paul as legit.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Paul didn’t write Acts? :eek:
Maybe that’s why he sounds like two different people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top