How do we know what we know?

[SteakNPotatoes]

All of the Apostles except John were martyred for what they claimed to be true about the dead man, Jesus. And for the first few hundred years, many more Christians willingly died for their faith rather than deny what they believed to be true. What they believed was these extravagant claims that you struggle with.

While dying for a good cause (a just war, while rescuing others from a fire, etc.) is understandable, dying for some ancient story about an obscure Jew from Palestine seems absurd when there were so many other politically acceptable Roman gods (notably the emperor himself) to choose from.

People die for a lie everyday, though they no doubt believe the lie is true. People can be convinced by any number of methods, voluntary or involuntary, that their deaths will serve a higher cause. Does that automatically validate their claims? By no means. Should we believe in Islam because some kooks kill themselves and 3000 others, or detonate an explosive vest on a bus in Tel Aviv? Should we become Buddhist because some monk with a gallon of gasoline and a Zippo self-immolates? Should we convert to Judaism because the zealots at Masada chose death instead of slavery?

Dying for one’s religious beliefs is not all that rare. I know some will say that these are different, but to me they aren’t - these people believe so strongly in their religion that they willing accept death to prove their point. Exact situations vary, but the mentality is the same. NOTE: I am NOT equating christian martyrs to terrorists, so don’t anyone get their panties in a twist.

Since you appeal to the validity of history, I would encourage you to read what these folks wrote before going to their deaths for what they believed. Yeah, they WERE Christians, but yes, they died for what they wrote. By the way, there is little doubt that the book we have today IS an accurate copy of what they actually wrote, so the question is not whether the Bible is accurate, but only whether it is true.

Your point about faith is fair. As the book itself says, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the word of God.”

Check it out.

I agree that the question is one of truth. No argument there. I’m surprised that few (other than you) are willing to agree with me regarding the need for faith in accepting these stories. Is it because I’m atheist, and the kneejerk reaction is to disagree with everything an atheist says?

I appreciate your response. And yes, I have done some studying of the bible, so I’m not all that uninformed.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

“For someone who rejects God’s existence, there will never be enough evidence to substantiate miracles. Not even if a hundred thousand non-Christian’s claimed to witness the resurrection of Jesus.”

Well, if you must know…

If a hundred thousand non-Christians witnessed the resurrection of Jesus (assuming you could fit that many people in the cave in such a way that they all could see), then, yes, I would be forced to reassess.

But put the shoe on the other foot:

“For someone who accepts God’s existence, there will never be enough evidence to disprove miracles. Not even if a hundred thousand claimed to witness the body of Jesus not risen.”

Hypothetical questions are fun, but ultimately pointless because they are hypothetical, not based in reality.

The reality is that the biblical claims of miracles are not reliable sources of information because they are not impartial. It is a person’s decision of faith that allows them to believe the stories. I doubt you will find any serious historian to argue otherwise.

 

[tdgesq]

Well, if you must know…

If a hundred thousand non-Christians witnessed the resurrection of Jesus (assuming you could fit that many people in the cave in such a way that they all could see), then, yes, I would be forced to reassess.

Reassess. Well, I would contend that if you outright reject God’s existence (you just labelled yourself an atheist below) then accounts of Christian miracles must be attributable to something other than God. Even if many witnessed the resurrection, it could have been that Jesus was just in a coma, or perhaps it was a David Blaine type magic trick. God couldn’t be the cause.

But put the shoe on the other foot:

“For someone who accepts God’s existence, there will never be enough evidence to disprove miracles. Not even if a hundred thousand claimed to witness the body of Jesus not risen.”

Just the opposite is true. Christians believe that historical accounts have worth. If there were one hundred thousand witnesses in history that testified Jesus was still in the tomb, I daresay we would not have this website and would all be Jews. As it turns out, no one testified to this in the Scriptures. And no one has produced the body of Jesus.

Hypothetical questions are fun, but ultimately pointless because they are hypothetical, not based in reality.

This hypothetical question had great value, it’s just that you misperceive what it was intended to demonstrate. Simply this: An atheist won’t believe in miracles regardless of what evidence exists in history because it is already presupposed that there is no God who could cause a miracle.

The reality is that the biblical claims of miracles are not reliable sources of information because they are not impartial. It is a person’s decision of faith that allows them to believe the stories. I doubt you will find any serious historian to argue otherwise.

If you mean that the writers of scripture believed in God, then you are correct. It was because of their belief in God that miracles make sense. There is a transcendent, personal and omnipotent being that wants to communicate with us, and that is the predicate for miracles. And they were justified in their belief in God. As I said before, the evidence for God’s existence is greater than the evidence against it.

As for the role of faith, no one here said that faith wasn’t necessary for belief in the Biblical miracles. What you saw as a “kneejerk” reaction was really a reaction to your suggestion that this is a blind faith that is opposed to reason. Not if God exists it isn’t. Catholics believe that reason illuminates faith and is harmonious with faith, not contradictory to faith.

It is ironic that atheists also regularly base their decisions on faith, even though they are usually unwilling to admit it. They believe that their senses are reliable, but how do they know for certain that this is the case? They believe that certain things are more likely to be true than not based upon what they are told by friends or mentors. Faith is a fact of everyday life. The question is, what do you have faith in, and is it opposed to reason or not.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

tdgesq:
Clearly we will never agree on this point (not that I expected to find much agreement here).

I think you miss the mark in generalizing about what atheists believe, however, but that is a common angle of attack from your side. The bottom line for me is that I remain convinced that the probability of God is low, but I am open to new evidence. That’s why I am here and not off somewhere sacrificing babies (or whatever it is that we atheists are supposed to do on the weekend).

Anyway, I wish you well, and look forward to knocking heads again in the future.

All the best…

 

[tdgesq]

Lol, I never assumed you were anything other than a decent person. I didn’t think I’d be doing much convincing either. But it is an apologetics forum after all. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[fineca]

…if u r a christian. Secular dating gives the following:

Matthew - c. 80-100AD
Mark - c.late 60-early70 AD
Luke - c. 75-100 AD
John c.125 AD

Actually the letters to the churches was the earliest writings of the NT, around 60-70 AD.

There’s no way that dating could be accurate. There is poor evidence for such a view (mainly the prejudice against miracles, the supposition the stories are myths, no solid historical evidence). Luke was written before Acts which was written before 64 since the story of Acts cuts short there and fails to mention the martyrdom of Paul in the 60s. Likewise the other synoptics were written in the 50s and 60s, definitely before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. The earliest letters were written in 45-50.

I suggest Historical reliability by Blomberg and Reasonable Faith by Craig - although protestants, they explain well why the Gospels must be dated early. That should convince the Atheist friend, since 20-30 years is far too short a time for myths to develop. Challenge him to give any example of such a thing in history.

 

[justasking4]

The problem with the above argument is that nobody is claiming that Caesar, Socrates, or Black Beard the Pirate was born to a virgin, turned water to wine, walked on water, rose from the dead, is God, and hears our prayers.

Before we can discuss these kinds of miracles performed by Christ we must first answer the question of; What is the historical evidence for the existence of Christ? There are quite suprisingly that do make reference to Him either directly or indiirectly

The extavagant (and to me, clearly mythical) claims made by believers of Jesus demand a higher level of evidence, in my view, simply because of the sheer improbability of the claims. Such evidence does not exist.

Not for the histoitcal proof we don’t need to go any higher than what we ask of any other ancient person. In fact the documentary evidence for the existence of Christ is actually far superior to other historical people. If a person wants to claim that Jesus did not exist, the nhe should be prepared to reject anyone else’ existence in the ancient past

Did a man named Jesus exist? I’m willing to accept that claim on the basis of ancient records. As for the rest? Well, that is a matter of faith, and cannot be proven.

When Christians base their reason to believe in the miralces of Christ they base it on the historical reliablity of gospels (which are quite good) and the existence of the God. If God does exist as the scripture claims He does, then we are on good grounds to believe that the One who created the universe could become a human being if He so chose to. The NT itself is that record.

 

[justasking4]

Well, if you must know…

If a hundred thousand non-Christians witnessed the resurrection of Jesus (assuming you could fit that many people in the cave in such a way that they all could see), then, yes, I would be forced to reassess.

You may want to look at I Corithinians 15 in which the apostle Paul lays the evidence for the resurrection based on eyewitness accounts. Let me quote it here for you: 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

There are a couple of things to note in this passage:

1. more than 500 saw Christ after His crucifixtion
2. James and Paul were skeptics of Christ and yet when they saw the risen Christ they changed to believing

But put the shoe on the other foot:

“For someone who accepts God’s existence, there will never be enough evidence to disprove miracles. Not even if a hundred thousand claimed to witness the body of Jesus not risen.”

Not necessarily. Not every claim to a miracle is a miracle. Any miracle claim needs to be investigatged to see if indeed a miracle has occurred.
Hypothetical questions are fun, but ultimately pointless because they are hypothetical, not based in reality.

Actually there is quite a lot at stake here. These are not “just stories” for our enjoyment but a message to the world and how God is going about saving it. A man’s personal destiny is at stake here and no one should lightly disregard its message.

The reality is that the biblical claims of miracles are not reliable sources of information because they are not impartial.
What account of histroy is truly not biased? The gospel accounts are quite good not only on historical grounds but also on its diversity in reporting certian events. Any lawyer in a court of law would love to have this kind of evidence to prove his case.

It is a person’s decision of faith that allows them to believe the stories. I doubt you will find any serious historian to argue otherwise.

 

[mercygate]

There’s no way that dating could be accurate. There is poor evidence for such a view (mainly the prejudice against miracles, the supposition the stories are myths, no solid historical evidence). Luke was written before Acts which was written before 64 since the story of Acts cuts short there and fails to mention the martyrdom of Paul in the 60s. Likewise the other synoptics were written in the 50s and 60s, definitely before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. The earliest letters were written in 45-50.

I suggest Historical reliability by Blomberg and Reasonable Faith by Craig - although protestants, they explain well why the Gospels must be dated early. That should convince the Atheist friend, since 20-30 years is far too short a time for myths to develop. Challenge him to give any example of such a thing in history.

Add to this the fact that in the early 1990s a fragment of the Gospel of John was recovered that could not possibly date from later than 90 A.D.