Do we have proof of a historical Jesus?

[Zaccheus]

Scowler
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.

Zaccheus
There’s no misunderstanding, Scowler. You don’t believe there were any miracles and you don’t believe the Bible is a reliable information source.
They didn’t have telephones, newspapers or TV news back then. “Reverberating across the land” would have meant that if someone performed a miraculous healing in Jericho, people in Capernaum would hear about it in a week or so when somebody came to town who had seen it or heard about it.
Then of course in Capernaum the locals would be just as skeptical as you are. They weren’t there and they know people don’t just come back to life or gain their sight after being born blind.
As for record keeping, how many records do you expect to survive intact after 2,000 years? My reason for believing is not the abundance of records from Roman scribes. Nor do I expect to convince you that any of this happened. I’m responding to your comments, not trying to convert you.

Scowler
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”.

Zaccheus
I suspect we’re not using the same definition of the word.
Not every case of Christ or a saint intervening in someone’s life qualifies as a true miracle.
But to respond to your point: that Christ might give me guidance to make a life decision, let me find a lost possession, or grant me healing, is not the same thing as Christ walking into my living room to ‘explain the problem of evil’. So the fact that He won’t show up in your living room to prove His existence to you, does not disprove anything people told you in this discussion.
And again I don’t expect to convince you; I’m just responding to your disproofs.

 

[Scowler]

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.

Obviously, because you are a well-educated person. But many people believe that Uri Geller really “channels” some paranormal powers.

And are you equating the Gospels with the likes of the Enquirer?

Well… the writers of the Enquirer probably don’t believe what they wrote. However, many of the readers believe that the articles describe actual events. So there IS a striking similarity. Then there are those who believe that the “wrestling games” are for REAL, not just a well choreographed “dance”. Scary, if you think about it.

 

[Scowler]

Not every case of Christ or a saint intervening in someone’s life qualifies as a true miracle.

Well, a miracle would be an event for which there is no and there can be no natural explanation. And that would need true omniscience, since it would require the knowledge of ALL the laws of nature. The trouble is that believers shamelessly abuse this word. Not even the spontaneous regrowth of a lost limb would qualify as a bona-fide miracle. After all many life-forms exhibit excellent regeneration abilities. Many times cancer goes into remission, and yet, the assumed positive outcome of prayers to some deceased person qualifies as a good-enough “miracle” for canonization.

But to respond to your point: that Christ might give me guidance to make a life decision, let me find a lost possession, or grant me healing, is not the same thing as Christ walking into my living room to ‘explain the problem of evil’. So the fact that He won’t show up in your living room to prove His existence to you, does not disprove anything people told you in this discussion.

It was a reply to those who like to say: “For the skeptic no evidence is sufficient”, which I find condescending and rude.

There is a correct argument: “The absence of proof is not a proof of absence”. Undoubtedly true. However, in real life we do not speak of “proof” we speak about evidence, and in the serious questions we speak about “evidence beyond any reasonable doubt”. Now the other version: “The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence”. And there is no physical evidence for God.

Now, let’s stop for a second, and let’s talks about why YOU believe? It seems that you believe in the physical manifestation of God, at least twice. Once in the OT, when God was supposed to dwell among humans, constantly interacting with them, and then about 2000 years ago in the “disguise” of Jesus. So your whole belief system rests upon physical manifestations. Why is the outright hostility when I ask for the same sign?

 

[Zaccheus]

Scowler

Well, a miracle would be an event for which there is no and there can be no natural explanation.

Zaccheus

A miracle is defined (by the Catholic Church) as an extraordinary sensible effect wrought by God that surpasses the power and order of created nature.
More detailed definition here.
I acknowledge that you may define it differently but this is what I mean by miracle.

Scowler

And that would need true omniscience, since it would require the knowledge of ALL the laws of nature.

Zaccheus

God has true omniscience. But perhaps you mean omniscience on the part of the person who observes a miracle? In which case I don’t agree. I don’t need to be omniscient in order to know that a true resurrection must be an act of God, because dead bodies just do not suddenly get up and walk around.

Scolwer

The trouble is that believers shamelessly abuse this word.

Zaccheus

Some believers do.

Scowler

Not even the spontaneous regrowth of a lost limb would qualify as a bona-fide miracle. After all many life-forms exhibit excellent regeneration abilities. Many times cancer goes into remission, and yet, the assumed positive outcome of prayers to some deceased person qualifies as a good-enough “miracle” for canonization.

Zaccheus

Perhaps here we’re conflating “is a miracle” with “can be proven by investigation to have been a miracle”?

Scowler

It was a reply to those who like to say: “For the skeptic no evidence is sufficient”, which I find condescending and rude.

Zaccheus

As I understand that saying it means that if an enquirer begins with the axiomatic assumption that X is simply impossible then no amount of evidence can be convincing.
…
“Hey Zaccheus, did you know the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth?”
“No it isn’t and no it doesn’t.”
“Well, here’s reams and reams of writings by scholars to prove it does. And here are some photos taken by NASA that prove it does. Here are records of measurements taken by enquirers to prove the earth is really flat.”
“No it isn’t and no it doesn’t.”

Scowler

There is a correct argument: “The absence of proof is not a proof of absence”. Undoubtedly true. However, in real life we do not speak of “proof” we speak about evidence, and in the serious questions we speak about “evidence beyond any reasonable doubt”. Now the other version: “The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence”.

Zaccheus

That last sentence depends upon context. The absence of evidence that I have an as yet unnoticed kidney stone is not particularly strong evidence that I can’t actually have a kidney stone. Of course it’s good grounds to object if I go about telling people I have a kidney stone. It just isn’t strong evidence that I can’t have one.

I exceeded the character limit so will post again with the rest.

 

[Zaccheus]

Part two

Scowler

And there is no physical evidence for God.

Zaccheus

What would you accept as being physical evidence for God?

Scowler

Now, let’s stop for a second, and let’s talks about why YOU believe? It seems that you believe in the physical manifestation of God, at least twice. Once in the OT, when God was supposed to dwell among humans, constantly interacting with them, and then about 2000 years ago in the “disguise” of Jesus. So your whole belief system rests upon physical manifestations. Why is the outright hostility when I ask for the same sign?

Zaccheus

My whole belief system does not rest upon physical manifestations. Rather my belief system includes the assertion that at certain times there were physical manifestations.
And I am not aware of feeling any hostility toward you. I disagree with some things you say and I choose to discuss them with you via this board. I’m rather enjoying the discussion.

 

[Scowler]

I don’t need to be omniscient in order to know that a true resurrection must be an act of God, because dead bodies just do not suddenly get up and walk around.

You simply rely on existing knowledge, and since you have no true “omniscience”, you cannot declare that “dead bodies cannot get up on their own”. All you can say that SO FAR we have not seen it happen. Which is, of course, a sensible position. (Not to mention that the story of resurrection is only a story, without evidence.)

As I understand that saying it means that if an enquirer begins with the axiomatic assumption that X is simply impossible then no amount of evidence can be convincing.

If that is the case, why don’t they say it clearly? I am always open and ready to examine the suggested evidence. But hearsay is not evidence. In order to accept any claim, it must be substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt.

That last sentence depends upon context.

If there is no evidence of a kidney stone, there is no reason to assume that there is. Kidney stones can be detected by simple means.

What would you accept as being physical evidence for God?

The same that the believers allegedly had. Actual interaction with God. Physical evidence is a simple concept. And I do not expect any special miracles. The explanation for the “problem of evil” would be sufficient.

My whole belief system does not rest upon physical manifestations. Rather my belief system includes the assertion that at certain times there were physical manifestations.

The whole Christian belief system is based upon the assumed physical interaction with God.