Coercive miracles?

[Peter_Plato]

Pay attention, Tony. We’re talking about miracles that Jesus performed. Apparently all viewed and documented for later inclusion in the gospels (a couple of generations later) by well-educated trilingual members of the sceptical community. No proletariat allowed. Who were these people who recorded them at the time and were they the same people who dictated them to the gospel authors?

Looking carefully at the names of individuals prevalent in Palestine at the time of the events recorded in the Gospels, Bauckham makes it clear that the Gospels could not have been later (100+ years) accretions provided by writers removed from the actual events and eyewitnesses.

Thus the names of Palestinian Jews in the Gospels and Acts coincide very closely with the names of the general population of Jewish Palestine in this period, but not to the names of Jews in the Diaspora. In this light it becomes very unlikely that the names in the Gospels are late accretions to the traditions. Outside Palestine the appropriate names simply could not have been chosen. Even within Palestine, it would be very surprising if random accretions of names to this or that tradition would fit the actual pattern of names in the general population.
Source: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Ch. 4

Recall that the destruction of Jerusalem killed a great portion of the Jewish population, radically changing the prevalence of names used by individuals in the population of Palestine after 70 AD. It is highly unlikely that individuals reconstructing or fabricating from whole cloth events and names to go with the narratives would be so fortunate as to hit upon just the right proportion of names like Lazarus, Jairus or Cleopas which were virtually unknown after 100 AD.

Add to this the common practice of using both a Jewish and Greek name by Jewish men in Palestine. The problem, for you, is compounded by the fact that the prevalence of Greek names in the Gospels also fits the profile pre-destruction of Jerusalem and not of that 100+ years removed.

This is just one aspect of Bauckham’s carefully laid out case for early authorship.

Now, of course, you have on your side the prejudices of secular atheism 2000 years removed from the historical narrative to appeal to. :yawn:

Being an honest man, no doubt, you will - at the very least - admit you MIGHT be wrong about Gospel authorship, rather than doubling down on the insistence that the Gospels are fictional narratives. :ehh:

 

[tonyrey]

Is this suppose to be the transcendental argument for God’s existence?

You haven’t answered my question. I’ll answer yours if and when you do.

 

[tonyrey]

Pay attention, Tony. We’re talking about miracles that Jesus performed…

You wrote:

“Give me a miracle, tell me who wrote about it and tell me who he got the information from. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.”

I gave you one but you are still not satisfied.

 

[Bradski]

You wrote:

I gave you one but you are still not satisfied.

Peter seems to have understood the question. Why can’t you? I’m asking about miracles performed by Jesus and who actually recorded the details for later inclusion in the gospels.

 

[Bradski]

Being an honest man, no doubt, you will - at the very least - admit you MIGHT be wrong about Gospel authorship, rather than doubling down on the insistence that the Gospels are fictional narratives. :ehh:

Yes, I could be wrong. But let me put something to you…

The miracles that Jesus were said to have performed were often seen by just a handful of people. Sometimes just the one. They were not directly written about at the time. It is the case that someone told someone about them (and that line of Chinese whispers could be quite a long one) who might then have written about them, almost certainly well after the event.

Did they take place? Well, they are in the bible which is the word of God and there’s no evidence that they didn’t take place. And this is an important point. Anyone can point to them and say, as you just did, that it’s impossible to discount them. Anyone who suggests that they might not have happened MIGHT be wrong. Lots of people saw them! Dozens of people saw them! Hundreds even! When what is being said is that it is reported that so many people saw them. As opposed to, well, let me think of a good example…Zeitoun.

I put it to you that if Zeitoun was reported to have happened two thousand years ago, then the argument for it to have actually happened would be, in your view, overwhelming. This wasn’t a few dozen people. This was millions. This wasn’t a one off event. It was dozens. It wasn’t over in a few minutes. It went on for three years. This wasn’t an event that was passed on by word of mouth over the years before it was recorded. It was recorded as it was happening. This wasn’t some ill-educated villagers amazed by some possible supernatural event. This was seen by heads of state and scientists and by well educated people with no axe to grind. This wasn’t some folk tale embellished in the retelling. This was actually investigated by the authorities and even by the church itself! We have eye witness accounts! I’d have to be mad, surely, to discount it.

Kinda funny, isn’t it. Second hand miracles with zero evidence that are supposed to have happened over two thousand years ago are accepted without question. But consider one that happened in recent memory (an actual appearance by the mother of Jesus herself) and, unless you want to put yourself forward for Gullible Christian of the Week award, it is discounted.

So if we are going to talk about being honest, then tell me if the Zeitoun miracle appeared in the gospels with an amount of evidence that is off the scale compared to any other given miracle, would you believe it?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Kinda funny, isn’t it. Second hand miracles with zero evidence that are supposed to have happened over two thousand years ago are accepted without question. But consider one that happened in recent memory (an actual appearance by the mother of Jesus herself) and, unless you want to put yourself forward for Gullible Christian of the Week award, it is discounted.

So if we are going to talk about being honest, then tell me if the Zeitoun miracle appeared in the gospels with an amount of evidence that is off the scale compared to any other given miracle, would you believe it?

It is more than “funny”.
I wonder how a nonbeliever can explain it to himself.
They may not all be good Christians, but they in total could possibly out-number atheists more than 20:1.
So, what is it that produces a faith in something so out of this world, so anti-this-world-common-sense, so poorly documented.
Clearly there are some atheists who consider themselves so above the unwashed masses that they find an answer in their own undeniable rationality set against the ridiculous notions, the ignorance and superstition of Christians.
But, maybe the Christians are on to something.
Maybe the proof doesn’t lie in strange demonstrations of power.
Consider that the evidence for God is to be found within the heart of the person.
It is said that the Holy Spirit offers us gifts of wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, fortitude, piety, and fear, wonder and awe of the Lord, and through them we grow in faith.
It is important to follow-up on His leads.

 

[Bradski]

It is more than “funny”.
I wonder how a nonbeliever can explain it to himself.

I think it’s incumbent on you to explain why you would believe miracles with next to no evidence that happened over two thousand years ago, yet miracles within living memory with colossus amounts of comparable evidence that would surely be screamed from the rooftops (applicable in this case) if it had happened centuries ago, are discounted.

That is, on the assumption that you discount them. If you don’t, then perhaps we can look at what evidence for recent miracles actually persuades you that they are true (Zeitoun in this case).

 

[icamhif]

You haven’t answered my question. I’ll answer yours if and when you do.

I don’t know if science can explain our concepts of “you” or “me,” although Pallas seems to raise a good point about the frontal lobe of our brain. I’m pretty sure that it can’t explain itself, as that would be circular reasoning.

As for the “I’ll answer your question, if you answer mine” rhetoric please chill. I’m not debating you.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I’m pretty sure that it can’t explain itself, as that would be circular reasoning.

Exactly as you say. The phrase “explain itself” is already nonsense. An explanation is to reduce something complicated to something else that is simpler. Since there can be no infinite descent of explanations, there is always an end point, which is either “axiomatically true” (in the formal systems, like mathematics) or which is a “self evident basic principle” (in the inductive systems like the science describing the objective reality).

What some people mean by this phrase: “is there a natural explanation for a specific phenomenon” - but their command of the grammar of the English language is poor.

 

[tonyrey]

Peter seems to have understood the question. Why can’t you? I’m asking about miracles performed by Jesus and who actually recorded the details for later inclusion in the gospels.

Peter seems to have understood the question. Why can’t you? I’m asking about miracles performed by Jesus and who actually recorded the details for later inclusion in the gospels.

To which you have had your reply:

You have one in the UNDHR with the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

It was indeed a miracle performed by Jesus and it was recorded in the Gospels. It was His revelation that God is a loving Father - the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which has survived for two thousand years and developed into the UNDHR which you accept willy-nilly.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know if science can explain our concepts of “you” or “me,” although Pallas seems to raise a good point about the frontal lobe of our brain. I’m pretty sure that it can’t explain itself, as that would be circular reasoning.

That fact alone destroys his hypothesis because it points to a more adequate explanation.

As for the “I’ll answer your question, if you answer mine” rhetoric please chill. I’m not debating you.

Your question suggests otherwise:

Is this suppose to be the transcendental argument for God’s existence?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly as you say. The phrase “explain itself” is already nonsense. An explanation is to reduce something complicated to something else that is simpler. Since there can be no infinite descent of explanations, there is always an end point, which is either “axiomatically true” (in the formal systems, like mathematics) or which is a “self evident basic principle” (in the inductive systems like the science describing the objective reality).

This phrase “self-evident” means something like “cannot possibly be untrue” or “explains itself.” That is radically different from the commonly proposed “brute fact” that some might propose. Self-evidently true entails that there are very good, foundational, non-circular reasons for accepting that the proposition not only explains why it must be true but also accords with other known truths.

 

[icamhif]

Your question suggests otherwise:

No, I was only asking what category of arguments for God’s existence would best fit where you are going with your rhetorical question. No more, no less . I’m sorry that my question was phrased in such a way that it could be interpreted as having an argumentative tone, but rest assured, it wasn’t meant to be argumentative at all.

Peace

 

[tonyrey]

No, I was only asking what category of arguments for God’s existence would best fit where you are going with your rhetorical question. No more, no less . I’m sorry that my question was phrased in such a way that it could be interpreted as having an argumentative tone, but rest assured, it wasn’t meant to be argumentative at all.

Peace

I believe we’re on the same wave length. God bless…

 

[Aloysium]

I think it’s incumbent on you to explain why you would believe miracles with next to no evidence that happened over two thousand years ago, yet miracles within living memory with colossus amounts of comparable evidence that would surely be screamed from the rooftops (applicable in this case) if it had happened centuries ago, are discounted.

That is, on the assumption that you discount them. If you don’t, then perhaps we can look at what evidence for recent miracles actually persuades you that they are true (Zeitoun in this case).

I would say that miracles in themselves are not important.
Whatever their meaning, they do stand out from the norm.
Conversely, the one great miracle of creation hides in full sight.
Miracles are meant to guide us in our journey to God,
They tell us about who He is and what is the nature of our relationship with Him.
So every week, I witness with the eye of faith, the miracle of the Eucharist.
I am not sure what would constitute truth as far as Zeitoun is concerned.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly as you say. The phrase “explain itself” is already nonsense. An explanation is to reduce something complicated to something else that is simpler. Since there can be no infinite descent of explanations, there is always an end point, which is either “axiomatically true” (in the formal systems, like mathematics) or which is a “self evident basic principle” (in the inductive systems like the science describing the objective reality).

BTW your depiction of “explain itself” conveniently ignores the fact that the explanation requires a mind. “Explain itself” CANNOT be an explanation to itself but to an interested intelligence, otherwise no explanation would be required nor sought.

The end point is not in whatever is “axiomatically true” nor in a “self-evident basic principle,” but in the intellect that accepts either one. Unfortunately, if the intellect that accepts either one does not fully account for the quality of “axiomatically true” nor “self-evident” then that intellect must defer to an Intellect that does, I.e., the Intellect that actually makes the principle self-evident or the proposition true axiomatically.