Believing without direct verification

[Vera_Ljuba]

Here is not-exactly-hypothetical conversation between a skeptic and a believer.

Skeptic: What evidence can you give for the alleged miracles performed by Jesus?
Believer: It is unfair to ask for evidence, when you also accept all sorts of claims without any evidence. (Observe: an attempt to avoid the question and turn the tables. Intellectually dishonest behavior.)
S: For example?
B: Well, you trust that the pilot on the plane is not drunk. You don’t bother to verify if he is sober, you simply accept it on FAITH.
S: It is true that I don’t bother to verify the status of the pilot, but why do you call that FAITH?
B: Simple. According to skeptics if one accepts a claim without evidence, that is “faith”.
S: Actually that is imprecise. “Faith” is to believe something for which is no sufficient evidence.
B: So do you have evidence for the sobriety of the pilot?
S: I certainly do. Not direct evidence, but extremely strong indirect one.
B: And what would it be?
S: It is called STATISTICS. The reports for any and all airline crashes are public domain. Every crash is investigated, and the findings are available to the public. And there NEVER was a reported accident due to the pilot being drunk. There are extremely few accidents in the first place, air travel is the safest way to get from one place to another.
B: But you still trust without direct evidence, just like I do.
S: If you think that the two cases are even remotely similar, then there is nothing to talk about.

And this is where the conversation stops. It is not because the skeptic wishes to stop it, it is because this particular believer is irrational. Is there a rational one out there, who can provide evidence for the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus?

 

[Gorgias]

Is there a rational one out there, who can provide evidence for the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus?

What would you consider sufficient ‘evidence’ for events that happened 2000+ years ago? (And remember – you’re the one asking for ‘rational’ considerations; so, if you insist on a standard that’s a priori impossible to fulfill, then the reasonable response will be “you’re not being rational”… )

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Vera_Ljuba Peace be with you! I enjoy reading your posts. Are you exploring your own belief ?

Now which Apostle was it that needed direct verification Jesus had risen. He had to see and feel the wounds of the crucifixion on the risen Jesus before he would believe. Jesus allowed him and said Blessed are those who believe without seeing.

Have you heard of the priest, now saint named Padre Pio? He also carried these wounds in the miracle, very painful miracle of Stigmata almost his entire priestly life. Saint Padre Pio has an incorruptible body and died late last century (1960s ). So his story, photos, youtube, and investigation of his miracles are all out there on the internet , for anyone to watch, see, read. Even photos of his incorruptible body.

Have you seen the Song of Bernadette? There is Famous and very true quote from her life story.

It is a miracle, and by the Grace of God that I am typing this to you now.

God bless you, keep you, and help you on your journey home.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What would you consider sufficient ‘evidence’ for events that happened 2000+ years ago? (And remember – you’re the one asking for ‘rational’ considerations; so, if you insist on a standard that’s a priori impossible to fulfill, then the reasonable response will be “you’re not being rational”… )

I am not about to put restriction upon the apologists, let them do their best.

Alleged events in history are notoriously hard to verify. Usually, historians consider an event sufficiently substantiated, if there are

1. several eye-witnesses
2. who reported the event independently from one another
3. who also had other reported events under their “belt”
4. who are trustworthy, because those events were verified by others
5. who came from different backgrounds…

As I said, not easy. The Romans were meticulous record keepers. And there are no records of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus. The reference to Jesus was not written by a contemporary historian (Josephus), and it is widely believed that the sentence has been inserted later on. But, as I said, I am not interested in restricting the efforts of the apologists. I am open.

Of course, there is no real need to disturb the dust of history. Jesus is supposed to be alive today, and it would be much easier to provide evidence of his existence.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Belief without proof is faith. Isn’t that what we are striving for?

 

[Wesrock]

All the other miracles hinge on the resurrection, no? The gospel accounts and the epistles of Paul (alleging/reporting hundreds of witnesses of former followers of the resurrected Christ), the absurdity of dozens of men proclaiming to be eyewitnesses to a crucified man being resurrected despite it resulting in being ostracized, the abandonment of their ordinary lives, and proclaiming it to the point of death… We find that sufficient.

But that follows from faith in God. Not to debate the topic here, but if one has a belief in the metaphysical necessity of an ultimate reality of love of being for reality to itself even be intelligible, suddenly the question of the possibility of miracles isn’t on completely shaky ground. Certainly they can be questioned, but they are not a metaphysical impossibility in itself. Again, I don’t want to delve into a debate on the study of being and the science of science here, but just stating that it results in a different level of skepticism when considering the question, at least.

 

[e_c]

Here is not-exactly-hypothetical conversation between a skeptic and a believer.

Skeptic: What evidence can you give for the alleged miracles performed by Jesus?
Believer: It is unfair to ask for evidence, when you also accept all sorts of claims without any evidence. (Observe: an attempt to avoid the question and turn the tables. Intellectually dishonest behavior.)
S: For example?
B: Well, you trust that the pilot on the plane is not drunk. You don’t bother to verify if he is sober, you simply accept it on FAITH.
S: It is true that I don’t bother to verify the status of the pilot, but why do you call that FAITH?
B: Simple. According to skeptics if one accepts a claim without evidence, that is “faith”.
S: Actually that is imprecise. “Faith” is to believe something for which is no sufficient evidence.
B: So do you have evidence for the sobriety of the pilot?
S: I certainly do. Not direct evidence, but extremely strong indirect one.
B: And what would it be?
S: It is called STATISTICS. The reports for any and all airline crashes are public domain. Every crash is investigated, and the findings are available to the public. And there NEVER was a reported accident due to the pilot being drunk. There are extremely few accidents in the first place, air travel is the safest way to get from one place to another.
B: But you still trust without direct evidence, just like I do.
S: If you think that the two cases are even remotely similar, then there is nothing to talk about.

And this is where the conversation stops. It is not because the skeptic wishes to stop it, it is because this particular believer is irrational. Is there a rational one out there, who can provide evidence for the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus?

I don’t think you will like my commentary. But here we go… line by line…

1. Fine to ask for evidence. We ought to.
2. That’s a silly reply, since the primary evidence is A) the texts that provide the witness and B) the extra-textual tradition which provides the witness. But okay, let’s go with it.
3. If one bothers to think of this at all, surely he could be trusting the pilot himself not to be drunk, which is distinct from “trusting that” the pilot is not drunk. These are distinct, and this will be important for something later on. Also, neither act is exactly the same as what the Church calls “faith.” But okay.
4. Here is something strange… B uses not his own concept of faith which he is supposedly trying to show the legitimacy of, but instead he is using an inferred one from many S’s. Bizarre.
5. This is not at all what is meant by “faith” by the Church. But if hypothetical S calls this “faith,” so be it. I will instead attack one word… “Sufficient.” What on earth does that mean? Sufficient to whom? How is this sufficiency measured? What counts as sufficient? Do different kinds of matters admit of different sufficient evidentiary support? S doesn’t tell us.
6. B now asks for “evidence,” and “evidence” alone. A word is missing.
7. The response adds new qualifiers to “evidence,” viz. “direct,” “indirect,” and “extremely strong.” A certain word is missing once again.
8. Whence comes evidence from statistics? Here there finally appears the importance of the distinction noted in #4, namely trusting a person as opposed to trusting a fact, which is better to call an assumption. This is HUGE. Faith - even taken as a natural act about natural things - is to trust a person, not to presume a fact. Faith relies on the goodness and/or authority of a person.
9. Certainly, it is not verified by the senses, just as history is not.
10. There are many differences, sure.

 

[e_c]

Onto round 2…

I am not about to put restriction upon the apologists, let them do their best.

Alleged events in history are notoriously hard to verify. Usually, historians consider an event sufficiently substantiated, if there are

1. several eye-witnesses
2. who reported the event independently from one another
3. who also had other reported events under their “belt”
4. who are trustworthy, because those events were verified by others
5. who came from different backgrounds…

As I said, not easy. The Romans were meticulous record keepers. And there are no records of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus. The reference to Jesus was not written by a contemporary historian (Josephus), and it is widely believed that the sentence has been inserted later on. But, as I said, I am not interested in restricting the efforts of the apologists. I am open.

Of course, there is no real need to disturb the dust of history. Jesus is supposed to be alive today, and it would be much easier to provide evidence of his existence.

1. We are back to the problem of “sufficient evidence.” What the heck does that mean? And which historians are these, please?
2. All 5 of these criteria are met by the NT anyway. In fact, the life of Jesus of Nazareth is better documented than perhaps any other figure of the time apart from men who had their own personal biographer, like the Roman emperor.
3. Here we get to a strange assumption, which is that there could only be reliable testimony from Romans occupying Judea. Why?
4. The records are the Gospels and connected documents, which are absolutely mammoth texts for their age. And they come after the spread of the oral tradition, which they assume everybody is already talking about anyway, at least in certain parts of the world. So no dice.
5. Josephus has all kinds of problems. But back to the bizarre assumption that ONLY Romans (citizens of the Empire specifically, I guess) could give an account. WHY? Furthermore, why would Rome care to write a bio about a carpenter from Judea who was executed after annoying some Jews for 3 years? Rome is portrayed even in the Bible as not really caring what the Jews are up to among themselves… It is only after a while that Rome realizes that the life of Jesus is a big deal.

Just some quick reactions. You have to deal with the existence of the texts themselves… As I see it, the claims made in them can be chosen only from 4 possibilities:

1. Lies.
2. Errors of the authors.
3. Stories everyone understood not to be meant as real.
4. Truth.

1-3 contain massive issues. Why would people coordinate such an elaborate scheme of lies, and how exactly would they be able to convince people who would have actually been around at the time of the alleged events? How exactly could people be SO mistaken about a man they claimed to live with closely for years? How could there suddenly be such a fantastical hermeneutic shift gone totally unnoticed by all interpreters? These are the kinds of questions you must deal with.

Peace,
-e_c

 

[MT1926]

From what I have read so far it seems the big problem is some people will only accept what they can see, feel, touch and prove (on there own). You will always have naysayers in life. There are people that deny the Holocaust ever happened. As well as the moon landing. The only thing that would ever convince them is if they were actually there.

That being said, a great explanation I heard once was… Why do you believe your birth date is the actual date you were born? How do you know your parents aren’t lying to you? How do you know the nurse didn’t write the wrong date on the certificate? How do you know you weren’t given to the wrong set of parents? We believe it is our birthday because of our parents, and others that came before us, handed us the knowledge.

Now you mentioned “The Romans were meticulous record keepers. And there are no records of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus.”

Do you have evidence for this claim or are you taking this statement on the faith of others? Even if the Romans were meticulous record keepers, Jesus wasn’t a Roman citizen, why would they keep records about him. In my mind the Roman’s were worried about a Jewish uprising, so you would think they would actually destroy all records of Jesus, wouldn’t you?

Since I can not personally prove anything I have mentioned so far (Jesus, the holocaust, the lunar landing, or my birthday) I choose to trust those that came before me (The Catholic Church and my parents) who did my homework for me. I can not prove whether the Bible is or isn’t historical but the Church can. Until someone shows good evidence to prove her wrong I will go with her on this subject.

Here is a portion of an article form this site. catholic.com/tract/proving-inspiration

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

Nations have come and gone, rulers have fallen, dictators overrun. Yet the Catholic church has stood the test of time for 2000 years.

NO LIE CAN BE THAT STRONG.

God Bless

 

[Vonsalza]

Here is not-exactly-hypothetical conversation between a skeptic and a believer.

Skeptic: What evidence can you give for the alleged miracles performed by Jesus?
Believer: It is unfair to ask for evidence, when you also accept all sorts of claims without any evidence. (Observe: an attempt to avoid the question and turn the tables. Intellectually dishonest behavior.)
S: For example?
B: Well, you trust that the pilot on the plane is not drunk. You don’t bother to verify if he is sober, you simply accept it on FAITH.
S: It is true that I don’t bother to verify the status of the pilot, but why do you call that FAITH?
B: Simple. According to skeptics if one accepts a claim without evidence, that is “faith”.
S: Actually that is imprecise. “Faith” is to believe something for which is no sufficient evidence.
B: So do you have evidence for the sobriety of the pilot?
S: I certainly do. Not direct evidence, but extremely strong indirect one.
B: And what would it be?
S: It is called STATISTICS. The reports for any and all airline crashes are public domain. Every crash is investigated, and the findings are available to the public. And there NEVER was a reported accident due to the pilot being drunk. There are extremely few accidents in the first place, air travel is the safest way to get from one place to another.
B: But you still trust without direct evidence, just like I do.
S: If you think that the two cases are even remotely similar, then there is nothing to talk about.

And this is where the conversation stops. It is not because the skeptic wishes to stop it, it is because this particular believer is irrational. Is there a rational one out there, who can provide evidence for the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus?

I think this is an excellent post because it represents a tremendous learning opportunity for those of us in any faith. One great lesson is this -

The skeptic is right. You cannot empirically prove the existence of God (or any other metaphyical thing) and you should give high priority to realizing and internalizing that fact.

However, it is also at this point (the point being your concession that the metaphyical is empirically unprovable) that you can remind the skeptic that most of us believe in several non-rational posits as being reasonably “true” in the absolutely necessary function and exercise of our daily life - like practicing “selflessness” or “greed (desire for personal gain)”. You can’t empirically prove that any of these are Real Things, they’re abstract concepts! But they’re required, to some degree, for your success as an individual AND a member of your social groups. Thus we take their supposed reality on faith (if you don’t like that word, feel free to use “reasonable assumption”)

But these ideas are at least “rational”, right? Not a chance! Since we exist both as individuals and as members of groups, values that emphasize individual gain are often irrational when juxtaposed against values that emphasize the success of our groups. The inverse is equally true, especially when the idea in question is “personal sacrifice”. Ergo, we have faith in ideas that, at least part of the time, can be quite irrational.

What’s even more troubling for the skeptic is that fact that we must also believe in rational, empirical concepts without actually reviewing the evidence that proves them. This is also a form of faith. Otherwise we can spend literally our ENTIRE LIVES just confirming the “proof” of the things we know, like “China has over a billion people in it” or “Neptune (the planet) really exists” or “Mitochondria really do “power” the cells of animals”.

I especially like the “China” example. If you don’t individually count each person there, even a skeptic that works for the Chinese Census would have to admit that proxies were involved in arriving at a given figure. And thus error terms are added to the methodology of the population count. These error terms prevent the creation of perfect certainty. And while we could argue that the census results are extremely reasonable in their estimated accuracy, a quintessential skeptic would rightly assert that the use of proxies create errors because error is INHERENT to the use of a proxy. If you wish to be error free, get counting! And hire help, because you can’t do it by yourself in one lifetime. But then again, you need a form of faith to assume your helpers are counting correctly, don’t you? After all, you don’t KNOW for certain. You only “reasonably assume” (have faith).

Your grand counter might be “But we can VERY reasonably assume that…”

The devout skeptic would retort with “I do not accept “reasonable assumptions”. Only facts, void of exception, that have been empirically proven in a way that I, personally, can recreate through scientific testing”.

Another lesson here is that rational skepticism is a very important tool that you SHOULD use for determining relevant truth. However, it is not the only tool for finding truth, and not all truth is “find-able” by using it. Much of the truth in our lives is not empirically proven or testable using the scientific method. Remember this the next time you tell someone the truth of “I love you”.

Go in Peace

 

[Vonsalza]

…who can provide evidence for the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus?

As an interesting aside, if those miracles are explainable by scientifically documented phenomena, then they’re not “miracles” as the word is commonly defined.

They’re called “miracles” by Christians because Christians readily concede that the miraculous occurrence is impossible without divine effort that is, apparently, capable of violating the laws of the observed universe.

It’s sorta like asking “who can provide evidence for a square actually being a circle?”

 

[Gorgias]

I am not about to put restriction upon the apologists, let them do their best.

The question isn’t what apologists are capable of… it’s what you’ll accept as reasonable and sufficient.

Alleged events in history are notoriously hard to verify.

Quite. More to the point, given the standards you list, you have left a gaping hole: what constitutes “reporting”? What constitutes “verification by others”?

1. who came from different backgrounds…

So… events that happened to homogenous groupings of people are unsubstantiable?

As I said, not easy. The Romans were meticulous record keepers. And there are no records of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus.

As e_c mentions, it’s pretty bizarre to think that the Romans would keep a record of all the alleged miracles performed by all of the alleged miracle workers throughout the empire. Do you have anything to suggest that they did so? If not, then it’s not reasonable to point to the lack of Roman documentation and suggest that it demonstrates an unreliability of claims of Jesus’ miracles.

The reference to Jesus was not written by a contemporary historian (Josephus)

Umm… you sure about that? Josephus is said to have been born in the early 1st century A.D., and have fought against the Romans in Galilee up through 67 A.D.

This would place him squarely in the right place, at the right time. If he himself wasn’t an eyewitness (which no one, to the best of my knowledge, claims), he certainly was in a position to give a first-hand account of what the eyewitnesses were themselves claiming.

and it is widely believed that the sentence has been inserted later on.

Actually, what is “widely believed” is that some parts of ‘his’ account were later redacted (most likely by Christians), but other parts of his account were his own.

Of course, there is no real need to disturb the dust of history. Jesus is supposed to be alive today, and it would be much easier to provide evidence of his existence.

Clever. Even if we provide substantiation that meets your standards, you’re already showing that your hedge will be “but where is He now?” :sad_yes:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

All the other miracles hinge on the resurrection, no? The gospel accounts and the epistles of Paul (alleging/reporting hundreds of witnesses of former followers of the resurrected Christ), the absurdity of dozens of men proclaiming to be eyewitnesses to a crucified man being resurrected despite it resulting in being ostracized, the abandonment of their ordinary lives, and proclaiming it to the point of death… We find that sufficient.

That is your prerogative.

1. That’s a silly reply, since the primary evidence is A) the texts that provide the witness and B) the extra-textual tradition which provides the witness. But okay, let’s go with it.

That was not my invention. PRmerger loves to bring up the pilot “problem”.

1. All 5 of these criteria are met by the NT anyway. In fact, the life of Jesus of Nazareth is better documented than perhaps any other figure of the time apart from men who had their own personal biographer, like the Roman emperor.

Strange. If that is so, why is it not part of the history curriculum in the schools. Why not? As far as I know, the Bible is not part of the history classes even in the parochial schools.

By the way, who were the authors of NT? Names, other publications?

1. The records are the Gospels and connected documents, which are absolutely mammoth texts for their age. And they come after the spread of the oral tradition, which they assume everybody is already talking about anyway, at least in certain parts of the world. So no dice.

Chinese “whisper” problem.

1. Lies.
2. Errors of the authors.
3. Stories everyone understood not to be meant as real.
4. Truth.

Nope. 5. Legends which evolved during the ages.

The question isn’t what apologists are capable of… it’s what you’ll accept as reasonable and sufficient.

I don’t have a special set of requirements for different types of claims. Moreover, I do not accept the principle that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”.

So… events that happened to homogenous groupings of people are unsubstantiable?

Those are much less reliable. There are always dissenters. People who believe in the paranormal claims cannot be accepted as reliable as stage magicians, who can see through the hoax, and can duplicate the same events without referring to some paranormal “stuff”.

As e_c mentions, it’s pretty bizarre to think that the Romans would keep a record of all the alleged miracles performed by all of the alleged miracle workers throughout the empire.

You guys can’t have both ways. e_c stated that the life of Jesus is the most thoroughly substantiated of those times. Now you claim that resurrection of Lazarus, or walking on water was simply “ignored”. Can’t have it both ways.

 

[e_c]

That was not my invention. PRmerger loves to bring up the pilot “problem”.

Strange. If that is so, why is it not part of the history curriculum in the schools. Why not? As far as I know, the Bible is not part of the history classes even in the parochial schools.

By the way, who were the authors of NT? Names, other publications?

Chinese “whisper” problem.

Nope. 5. Legends which evolved during the ages.

…

You guys can’t have both ways. e_c stated that the life of Jesus is the most thoroughly substantiated of those times. Now you claim that resurrection of Lazarus, or walking on water was simply “ignored”. Can’t have it both ways.

1. I believe you. What does that have to do with my claim as it stands?
2. Because people get too offended, there are ample opportunities to learn Scripture elsewhere, because the government forbids it… Seriously? You are implying that the standards of American education determine what is true and false. Scary. And I am confident you could find schools that use at least some parts of the Bible, especially the OT, to examine history, since they are some of the best (or even only) documents about certain times and places.
3. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Sosthenes, Silvanus, and Timothy. There are other possible contributors, redactors, and authors, but these men were the authors (even if through a community under their supervision or a secretary,) at a minimum. Why do they need “other publications”? What a bizarre criterion for credibility.
4. Why not go ahead and give an account of exactly how such a whisper game would work, given the claims of the texts themselves…
5. That would be reducible to one or more of the first 3, since if the author knows it is a false story and is presenting it to be believed as true, then he is lying; if he falls for a story thinking it to be true and then presents it as true, then he has made a mistake and is in error; if he is telling the story that others know just to be a story, then it is simply that.
6. Which Roman citizens were in the boat? What Roman citizen was in on what the gossip was in Bethany? Exactly how many “Romans” do you think were actually living in Judea at that time? How exactly are these people - Roman or not - supposed to be chronicling this anyway other than by talking about it? Even if thousands of people knew all about Lazarus or other miracles, which even some Romans did (as we know from Scripture!), they are not blogging about it. There is a reason there are no significant original manuscripts from that time period… You seem to think people carried around reams of paper and a quill with them, and then they could go to their file cabinet at home and tuck their written account away safely for everyone (who!?) to see later. And the authentically human reaction, in the milieu of the utter social chaos Jesus caused, I would suggest, is not to go away and find paper to write things down, not only because of the strength of the use of oral tradition, but also because you just want to know the end of the story first… So you just keep watching. “What will he say next week? What will his friends do? Where will he go to preach? What are the Jews going to do? Let’s watch…” Some (but not even close to all, as John tells us) was written down after, to be a reliable tool to preserve memories and to use to preach.

I’m quite interested to see you attempt a plausible “whisper theory.”

 

[Bradski]

Why not go ahead and give an account of exactly how such a whisper game would work, given the claims of the texts themselves…

He did rise from the dead. Someone said that a few people actually saw Him.

Someone told me it’s true, that a lot of people saw Him.
No, surely not.
Yeah! There were quite a lot people who can confirm it.

This guy told me that quite a lot of people saw the risen Christ.
What, like twenty? Thirty?
Well, he didn’t say how many, but yeah.

I met this guy yesterday who said there was at least thirty or more people who saw Him.

This bloke said a couple of dozen at least.

There were dozens.

There were scores.

Could have been nearly a hundred.

I heard a hundred.

It was at least a hundred.

More than a hundred.
Really?
Yeah. Much more. Maybe two hundred.

I swear it’s true. My mate’s cousin knows this guy who said that hundreds of people saw Him. Now why would he lie to me. He’s as honest as you are.

And back to the post, where we can see the biblical record sits at 500. Although someone a week or so back said that 5,000 witnesses to the resurrection were martyred by the Romans. And another poster backed that up. No evidence whatsoever.

If you really can’t see how this works in simple day to day stories about non consequential things, then you have me totally bemused. Have you never heard a guy tell the same story twice and find it’s been ‘enhanced’. Especially if someone listening expresses doubt.

 

[goout]

Here is not-exactly-hypothetical conversation between a skeptic and a believer.

Skeptic: What evidence can you give for the alleged miracles performed by Jesus?

Believer:
None, if by evidence you mean fundamentalist rationalist material proof. (I hope you find this to be a direct answer).

Believer: It is unfair to ask for evidence, when you also accept all sorts of claims without any evidence. (Observe: an attempt to avoid the question and turn the tables. Intellectually dishonest behavior.)

see above ^^^^
You don’t really understand Christianity. Christians don’t claim it’s unfair to ask for proof. It’s just really silly to ask for fundamentalist rationalist proof on matters of being, meaning, purpose, identity.

 

[ffg]

Believer:
None, if by evidence you mean fundamentalist rationalist material proof. (I hope you find this to be a direct answer).

see above ^^^^
You don’t really understand Christianity. Christians don’t claim it’s unfair to ask for proof. It’s just really silly to ask for fundamentalist rationalist proof on matters of being, meaning, purpose, identity.

Bingo.

It’s been said more than once that someone who concludes negatively with claims they’ve studied all the evidence, just doesn’t realize they aren’t on the same road as a practicing Christian.

I wonder how many folks who have done all this studying have incorporated Christian practice into their lives to get a good evaluation.

If all they’ve done is read, then it’s impossible to claim an understanding.

One minute in the cockpit is worth so much more than observing for 1000 hours.

 

[e_c]

He did rise from the dead. Someone said that a few people actually saw Him.

Someone told me it’s true, that a lot of people saw Him.
No, surely not.
Yeah! There were quite a lot people who can confirm it.

This guy told me that quite a lot of people saw the risen Christ.
What, like twenty? Thirty?
Well, he didn’t say how many, but yeah.

I met this guy yesterday who said there was at least thirty or more people who saw Him.

This bloke said a couple of dozen at least.

There were dozens.

There were scores.

Could have been nearly a hundred.

I heard a hundred.

It was at least a hundred.

More than a hundred.
Really?
Yeah. Much more. Maybe two hundred.

I swear it’s true. My mate’s cousin knows this guy who said that hundreds of people saw Him. Now why would he lie to me. He’s as honest as you are.

And back to the post, where we can see the biblical record sits at 500. Although someone a week or so back said that 5,000 witnesses to the resurrection were martyred by the Romans. And another poster backed that up. No evidence whatsoever.

If you really can’t see how this works in simple day to day stories about non consequential things, then you have me totally bemused. Have you never heard a guy tell the same story twice and find it’s been ‘enhanced’. Especially if someone listening expresses doubt.

Ooooh goody I love stories! Let me try.

He did rise from the dead. Someone said that a few people actually saw Him.

Who!? I want to go talk to that person! Who did he say saw Him?

Someone told me it’s true, that a lot of people saw Him.
No, surely not.
Yeah! There were quite a lot people who can confirm it. Also, those same people are playing with their lives by challenging Rome, and they are happily going to their death swearing it is true. I’m on my way to watch one of them be stoned right now.

This guy told me that quite a lot of people saw the risen Christ.
What, like twenty? Thirty?
Well, he didn’t say how many, but yeah.
My foot. I’m not an idiot.
Well actually these people go to the Temple every day and explain it. Come with me tomorrow.

I met this guy yesterday who said there was at least thirty or more people who saw Him.
Oh yeah? Sounds fictional to me. Who are these people?

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Let’s try looking at the actual text though. We can use, as ONE example among the body of texts talking about eye witness accounts, St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:6.

Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.

On its own, not much information. But when you consider the immediate context (where certain individuals are named), and you realize the implication that these 500+ people must be in a particular area (Jerusalem-ish), and that Paul has kept tabs on these individuals’ lives (he knows that some are dead, which is probably not something that one is going to know in the ancient Mediterranean unless he is trying to keep in touch) or knows someone who claims to have been, there is a better picture.

I am sure you will want to zoom in on that last point. “He knows someone who claims to have kept tabs. Riiiiiiight. Back to whispers.” Problem is, while 500+ is not a very large number of people for us today, in 1st century Jerusalem it is significant. The degrees of separation between any Jerusalem dweller and one who would have claimed to have actually seen this event would be probably 2 or 3 at most. Not hard to find the real eye witnesses.

And this was one particular event, presumably public. It would not be that hard to track down exactly what that particular appearance was like, when it occurred, how long it lasted, and so on.

The larger point is this: we are not less gullible or “smarter” than most ancient peoples. If you told me your cousin knew a guy who knew a guy who said he had heard that someone met a guy that claims that 500+ people saw someone who had risen from the dead, I would laugh at you… Unless you could get me the eye witnesses, or do miracles in proof (which Paul could and did), or provide other arguments of support (which Paul could and did, in the immediate context), or claim to be an eye witness yourself (which Paul could and did, in the immediate context)…

This is just off the top of my head, and about ONE text from ONE person. Telephone theory is ridiculous.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Believer:
None, if by evidence you mean fundamentalist rationalist material proof. (I hope you find this to be a direct answer).

Bad answer. Those alleged miracles happened in the physical world, so they need to be substantiated in a rational, physical manner.

Let’s try looking at the actual text though. We can use, as ONE example among the body of texts talking about eye witness accounts, St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:6.

Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.

So now this particular text must be taken literally. Any other witnesses corroborating the story?

1. I believe you. What does that have to do with my claim as it stands?

It has everything to do with demands of verification.

1. Because people get too offended, there are ample opportunities to learn Scripture elsewhere, because the government forbids it… Seriously? You are implying that the standards of American education determine what is true and false. Scary. And I am confident you could find schools that use at least some parts of the Bible, especially the OT, to examine history, since they are some of the best (or even only) documents about certain times and places.

I did not talk about the American system. I am not aware of any country, where the curriculum of ancient history includes the Bible. Are you? I am not aware of any library where the Bible would be included in the history section. It is always presented in the mythology section.

1. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Sosthenes, Silvanus, and Timothy. There are other possible contributors, redactors, and authors, but these men were the authors (even if through a community under their supervision or a secretary,) at a minimum. Why do they need “other publications”? What a bizarre criterion for credibility.

These are just names. And textual analysis indicates that there were several, unnamed and unknown people whose writs were assembled under these names.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the life of Jesus is very well documented in the Bible, and then why are there no other texts from the same time mentioning the miracles? Or those miracles are just a few “ho-hum” events in some far away, dusty corner of the Roman empire, which no one bothered to report? Walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead should have made an impact - if they actually happened.

 

[Gorgias]

Those are much less reliable. There are always dissenters.

That “there are always dissenters” doesn’t support your claim that multiple peoples must witness an event.

People who believe in the paranormal claims cannot be accepted as reliable as stage magicians, who can see through the hoax, and can duplicate the same events without referring to some paranormal “stuff”.

Fair enough, but you know how it goes: absence of (dissenter) evidence isn’t evidence of absence (of truth).

Vera_Ljuba:

You guys can’t have both ways. e_c stated that the life of Jesus is the most thoroughly substantiated of those times. Now you claim that resurrection of Lazarus, or walking on water was simply “ignored”. Can’t have it both ways.

Is this the quote by e_c that you’re referencing?

e_c:

The records are the Gospels and connected documents, which are absolutely mammoth texts for their age. And they come after the spread of the oral tradition, which they assume everybody is already talking about anyway, at least in certain parts of the world.

If so, then it’s not “having it both ways” – e_c is claiming that the Gospels substantiate Jesus’ life and actions, and I’d agree with that. What I’m asserting is that your claim that the Romans would’ve cared enough to document his actions is implausible. And, I see that you haven’t any evidence that the Romans documented the lives of any putative miracle workers from across the empire, so I guess that assertion is now in the dust…