R
RKS89
Guest
Those who claim Jesus was some kind of shaman or magician betray their lack of familiarity with the Gospel accounts. He wasn’t a combination of David Copperfield and Buddha.
- Status
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
Actually, “proof” is the wrong word to use here. No one can prove any historical event. Proof is the result of repeat experiments that produce a predictable outcome, so the “proof” that naysayers insist upon can never be given to them.
What can be given is evidence, the very same kind of evidence you would use to verify the likelihood of any historical event or person. Evidence like: were there any eyewitnesses? Did they leave a written testimony? Are the eyewitnesses real people? Where are they buried? What kind of immediate effect did this person have on his/her cohorts? What are the long term effects of this event/person? Etc, etc, etc.
There is more evidence for Jesus and the apostles than there is for any Roman emperor, Hannibal, Confucius, Mohammed or any other ancient historical figure. But no proof.
What can be given is evidence, the very same kind of evidence you would use to verify the likelihood of any historical event or person. Evidence like: were there any eyewitnesses? Did they leave a written testimony? Are the eyewitnesses real people? Where are they buried? What kind of immediate effect did this person have on his/her cohorts? What are the long term effects of this event/person? Etc, etc, etc.
There is more evidence for Jesus and the apostles than there is for any Roman emperor, Hannibal, Confucius, Mohammed or any other ancient historical figure. But no proof.
R
RKS89
Guest
Good points, and well said.
O
omgriley
Guest
Why is it that people constantly hold the New Testament manuscripts to a standard they would never hold to any other historical document. It’s straight up confirmation bias. They don’t want Christ to be real, so they deny the evidence.
The Gospels are in fact the greatest of historical documents. They’re painstakingly specific; they describe real figures who can be confirmed by other non-religious sources; they were written within mere decades of the events they describe. There is simply no reason to reject them as historical, except on the basis that one wants to reject their content.
The Gospels are in fact the greatest of historical documents. They’re painstakingly specific; they describe real figures who can be confirmed by other non-religious sources; they were written within mere decades of the events they describe. There is simply no reason to reject them as historical, except on the basis that one wants to reject their content.
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
The fact that people demand that we accept certain things about them might have something to do with it.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
According to Wikipedia,
Last edited:
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
You’re saying that IF Jesus walked on water, then it would be the same as a magician could do?
S
Scowler
Guest
Any good magician can walk of water. Google “magician walks on water”, and have fun with it.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Are you familiar with the Scripture passages? We’re talking about deep water, far from shore, and with very high waves. Pixar can do that; magicians can’t.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Any good modern magician using all the advantages or modern tech and with the opportunity to set up the illusion, perhaps. And how many of them do it in the middle of a storm?Any good magician can walk of water. Google “magician walks on water”, and have fun with it.
S
Scowler
Guest
Why do you think that the Scripture verses carry any weight for a non-Christian? But I offer you a bet. “Convince” Jesus to demonstrate his abilities here and now, and I will concede defeat. Better yet, pray to God to come and conduct a friendly fire-side chat and explain the “problem of evil”. I will be satisfied with that.
R
RKS89
Guest
We can’t simply isolate the miracles and see if they stand up to scrutiny. If you isolate one piece of a Gospel it’s easy to draw the conclusion that maybe Jesus was an exceptionally gifted magician/shaman, or a political/religious rebel, or even a teacher on the level of Siddhartha. But stepping back and accounting for the big picture (the rise of the Church, the early High Christology in some of the Epistles, the accounts of martyrdom, and more) those notions begin to look less and less plausible.
R
RKS89
Guest
There’s a point where you can only examine the evidence so much; eventually, if you can entertain the possibility of Jesus being who He said He was, you have to square up with that and test it. And that’s something only you can do.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
We don’t think that. I was answering the claim that the miracles described would be ‘ho hum’ to anyone of the time who witnessed them; and that magicians of the time could have duplicated the effects.
And no bet. Jesus isn’t going to come put on a show for your convenience.
S
Scowler
Guest
There is a misunderstanding here. I don’t believe that any of those alleged miracles actually happened - regardless what the Bible says. And I said that those kinds of “miracles” would be ho-hum TODAY. Back then such miracles would have reverberated across the land, they would be described in detail by the real historians. After all the Romans were excellent record keepers.
Too bad. Though I can hope. After all he is willing to perform a “miracle” to help someone to find his car keys, or arrange that someone can get a better paying job, it is not too big a deal to come and explain the “problem of evil”.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Wow, you’re missing the dialectic here. You said that the miracles weren’t proven merely from the Scriptures. (I agree with you, but that’s not what I was responding to). Then you said that – even if the accounts of the miracles were true – they would not offer any evidence that Jesus was anything more than a magician. I denied that.
Now you seem to agree with me. So OK, whatever, let’s move on.
S
stuartbrianhenlis
Guest
So, Scowler,
What’s the point you’re trying to make here? All you seem to be doing is kicking up dust and spouting nonsense. If you don’t believe, you don’t belong posting on a Catholic forum.
What’s the point you’re trying to make here? All you seem to be doing is kicking up dust and spouting nonsense. If you don’t believe, you don’t belong posting on a Catholic forum.
R
RKS89
Guest
If you’re plumber came by today and healed your crippled neighbor or preformed any of those same miracles, you wouldn’t bat an eye?
S
Scowler
Guest
Your sentence is a bit convoluted… Who is the plumber? Who would come? But, let’s get serious.
As a matter of fact, my next door neighbor was involved in a car accident, and he is seriously crippled, crutches and all (poor guy). So if that plumber would come and heal him, I would be properly impressed. BUT! If someone came and asserted that they read in the National Enquirer (if you are not in the US, you might not understand the significance) that somewhere in Mesopotamia there was a crippled “someone” a few hundred years ago, who was healed by an unknown “carpenter”, I would stay skeptical.
R
RKS89
Guest
That’s understandable. I guess my point is that I’m not sure it’s fair to say the miracles would be considered ho-hum. If I turn on Criss Angel or pay to see David Copperfield I’m expecting to see illusion and “magic”- I know who those guys are and what to expect from them. Jesus healing a leper or restoring a blind man’s sight is equivalent to some normal, average Joe, who you’d have no reason to expect anything miraculous from, healing your neighbor. It isn’t as if Jesus suddenly leaves the woodshop and announces he’s going on tour to showcase spectacular feats.
And are you equating the Gospels with the likes of the Enquirer?
And are you equating the Gospels with the likes of the Enquirer?
- Status