Miracle stories

[wasmit]

First, you need to have faith.

Second, the tilma, or cloak, of Our Lady of Guadalupe is declared by the Church as not painted by human hands. Secretary of State Clinton viewed it recently. You, and anyone else, can run down to examine it scientifically. Others already have.

The point is you have to get right with God. Your survival depends on it.

Peace,
Ed

how does a picture on a cloak relate to the cana story?

 

[wasmit]

But the beliefs of others are no reason for a rational person to adopt the same belief.

When would you believe something with the only reason being that X number of other people believe it?

 

[wasmit]

Historians will tell you that the Gospels arn’t primary documents of events that occured per se. Nobody was sitting there with a pen and paper when these things took place. But what historians do believe is that this account is precisely a primary document of what people believed at the time - believed they actually saw these things.

I think the evidence is laid before you in sufficient lot - or at least insofar as it’s going to be. It’s really only a matter of whether you believe these were real witnesses or false witnesses. What do you think?

I agree that the many gospels show what a particular group of people beleived at the time that they were written.

Are you saying that the four canon gospels is all the evidence is going to be?

 

[wasmit]

Wasmit stated a typical atheist dogma in so many words… An appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Wasmit considers himself the *only *authority.
He/She will accept no other account unless He/She decides (authoritatively) that it is acceptable.
Wasmit has already decided that either (1) Nothing too far in the past is believable because there is no ‘real’ proof (video?) that it ‘really’ occurred. or (2) we can believe most anything in the past other than the miracles in the bible (old or new testament). ← pretty selective ain’t it?
He/She is the authority to state what is and is not true.
Wasmit has decided that you do not have the backing he/she requires, and you will not change Wasmit’s mind about it.

2 or 3 witnesses … check
taken to the church (teaching) … check

heathen and a publican?

michel

You claim to know quite a lot about me…

 

[wasmit]

Let’s not psychoanalyze; it’s a pretty hostile thing to do. In all truth, Wasmit’s concern is a legit one - most big religions speak from a position of authority and that gives us no discernment. I’m not against appealing to an authority, but one has to determine if the authority is first a worthy one - one of the ways we do that is by an assessment of it’s claims.

Wasmit hasn’t been hostile about believers beliefs and neither should we be in any case. Let’s educate if we can, encourage in the faith if we can, shed light on dark places if we can, but let’s not berate. We rebuke believers, not athiests or heathens or publicans or as I prefer to put it, those curious about the faith.

Wasmit, I don’t know what will settle the discrepency between Christian tenants and the tenants which you hold, but I have faith that with faith and through prayer, God will show you. God is wise, and wants you likewise to be so.

this is how I determine whether to accept an argument from authority:

fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[wasmit]

You are right … I am presuming too much.
I took the leap from his ‘appeal to authority fallacy’ statement.
I read this and wondered what authority would be sufficient for him, if an appeal to authority is considered a fallacy.
I think that is the crux of the issue.
At what point is the appeal to the bible as an authority not a fallacy?

I’m pretty sure that an appeal to the contents of the bible as an authority is always fallacious, though this would depend on the issue being discussed. Perhaps it could be used non-fallaciously when considering “Did christians exist before 100ce?” ?

Anyway, an appeal to the contents of the bible as an authority is fallcious because:
-It is incredibly biased. It states this bias openly. Could it possibly be more biased? I don’t know.
-The author is unidentified (for the 4 canon gospels. I don’t know about the other sections)
-The author was not a miracle expert,
-The author was writing third, or fourth, or tenth hand.
-On this issue, there is disagreement with the other three canon gospels.

As others have stated, there were many witnesses to the miracle, including Mary.

I have asked “how do you know this” and “how do I know this”, and not received a reply.

The bible also shows that Jesus connected Mary and the apostle John in a very special way while He was on the cross.

The apostle John was not the author of “John”. How do you know that “Jesus connected Mary and the apostle John in a very special way while He was on the cross.” ? How do I know this?

Even if John didn’t write it down for many years, doesn’t mean he didn’t teach it to Christians before He wrote it down.

The apostle John would have been many years dead when the book of John was written. The apostle John was not the author of “John”.

After all, the church is a teaching church before it is a scripture writing church.
It makes logical sense that what John eventually wrote down in his account of the gospel is what he had been teaching his whole life rather than penning something that nobody had even heard up until then.

The apostle John was not the author of “John”.

It’s plausible to think that John knows of the miracle through Mary.

It’s plausible to think that John taught of this miracle and that, in the time he taught it, many other witnesses were available to refute his account if his facts were wrong.

I have asked “how do you know this” and “how do I know this”, and not received a reply.

 

[cazayoux]

wasmit:
-The author is unidentified (for the 4 canon gospels. I don’t know about the other sections)

how do YOU know this?
While the scripture itself doesn’t state authorship, tradition tells us the authors of the gospel accounts.
I have a feeling that even if the gospels did state authorship, this is no reason for you to believe it anyway.

wasmit:
-The author was not a miracle expert,

how do YOU know this?
Regardless … you don’t have to be an automotive engineer to witness a car being driven.

wasmit:
-The author was writing third, or fourth, or tenth hand.

how do YOU know this?
Two of the gospel accounts are from apostles, one is from a student of Paul, one is from a student of Peter and Paul.

wasmit:
-On this issue, there is disagreement with the other three canon gospels.

How do you know this?
Silence on the part of three gospels does not equal disagreement.

wasmit:
The apostle John was not the author of “John”.

How do YOU know this?
I disagree with you.
On what basis do you KNOW that the apostle John was not the author?
The only evidence I will accept from you is if you were sitting in the room and witness first hand the person actually writing the gospel of John … and that fellow wasn’t John the apostle.

wasmit:
How do you know that “Jesus connected Mary and the apostle John in a very special way while He was on the cross.” ?

It’s also written in scripture… and I appeal to the authority of scripture and trust the testimony of the Christians of every century since that affirm what I believe.

wasmit:
The apostle John would have been many years dead when the book of John was written.

How do YOU know this?
Tell me the date that John died … and the date the Gospel of John was written.
Were you there? … or are you trusting someone else to tell you (appealing to authority?) that the apostle John was dead many years before the book of John was written?

wasmit:
The apostle John was not the author of “John”.

***HOW ***do you know this?

wasmit:
I have asked “how do you know this” and “how do I know this”, and not received a reply.

You’ve stated many things here as absolutes, for which you have no proof.
Can you answer your own question for these statments?

michel

 

[diggerdomer]

When would you believe something with the only reason being that X number of other people believe it?

I didn’t say “only”-- however – I believe Hawaii exists even though I’ve never been there or seen it for myself. I trust the evidence others have given me-- their beliefs and the reasons for them convince me. Everyone has reasons for their beliefs. Those reasons may or may not be persuasive to others.

 

[grannymh]

When would you believe something with the only reason being that X number of other people believe it?

Shouldn’t who these people are be important? And shouldn’t their source of information be taken into consideration? Wouldn’t reputation be a factor?

And how does one learn history? What about non-verbal belief like going to a museum?

And the most important question of all. What is the value or importance of the “something” to be believed? A movie review may be low on the list. But what if that “something” concerned issues about death and beyond?

As I think about all these questions, what if I believed in something that nobody in my group of relatives and friends believed in? Not too many people believe in miracles.

Why would anyone want to believe in a miracle that didn’t directly improve their lot?

 

[grannymh]

Anyway, an appeal to the contents of the bible as an authority is fallcious because:
-It is incredibly biased. It states this bias openly. Could it possibly be more biased?

 

[wasmit]

I didn’t say “only”-- however – I believe Hawaii exists even though I’ve never been there or seen it for myself. I trust the evidence others have given me-- their beliefs and the reasons for them convince me. Everyone has reasons for their beliefs. Those reasons may or may not be persuasive to others.

This is exactly what I am looking for - reasons. Specifically in realation to this issue.

 

[wasmit]

When would you believe something with the only reason being that X number of other people believe it?

Yes to all. Especially to the sources question. Sources for truth claims should be thoroughly and critically checked. I assess arguments from authority by this criteria: nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

And how does one learn history? What about non-verbal belief like going to a museum?

School? Instruction? I don’t really know what you are meaning here.

And the most important question of all. What is the value or importance of the “something” to be believed? A movie review may be low on the list. But what if that “something” concerned issues about death and beyond?

Another important consideration. The more important a truth-claim is, the more thoroughly and critically it should be checked.

As I think about all these questions, what if I believed in something that nobody in my group of relatives and friends believed in? Not too many people believe in miracles.

Why would anyone want to believe in a miracle that didn’t directly improve their lot?

Imo, it is a bad criteria to prefer to believe things that are positive or comforting. This can easily lead to many disasterous consequences, e.g. a person avoiding medical care because they think they are healthy (when they are not). See Daniel Hauser.

Personally, I beleive a claim to the extent that the evidence supports it. That is the most rational stance, imo.

 

[grannymh]

This is exactly what I am looking for - reasons. Specifically in relation to this issue.

I will give you my personal reason for believing in the miracle of the wedding feast of Cana.

When I was in high school, I stomped my foot and said “I want to know right now if God exists.” Lightening did not strike me. So I had to figure it out myself. I did using a totally irrational method but it worked for me in that it gave me peace in my decision that yes, God existed. At that point, I was satisfied so I promised myself I would get around to figuring out Jesus and the Catholic Church.

Eventually, I decided that Jesus was God. I based it totally on His saying so. I accepted the miracles but I depended more on His words especially when He established the Catholic Church. I am still learning about the spiritual depth of the Catholic Church and I love the fact that Jesus is truly present in Holy Communion.

So my reasons for believing the miracle of the wedding feast of Cana starts with the Catholic Church saying so. Next I believe it because Jesus is God. And finally I believe it because God, way back in high school, made Himself known to me.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life with God.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Wasmit, I gave you my non-rational belief system regarding Cana while you were answering me here.

Yes to all. Especially to the sources question. Sources for truth claims should be thoroughly and critically checked. I assess arguments from authority by this criteria: nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

My keyboard is about to become my pillow so I will continue this tomorrow. I do have an idea about the authority issue regarding the Bible.

By the way, have you ever been to Southeast Alaska and met anyone who is a Tlingit native? Their ancient culture was advanced as far as language, art, culture, society, etc. However, it is my understanding that their language, which is very descriptive, was in use for a long time before it was written.

Blessings,
granny

A mind is a beautiful gift from the Creator.

 

[wasmit]

wasmit:
-The author is unidentified (for the 4 canon gospels. I don’t know about the other sections)

how do YOU know this?
While the scripture itself doesn’t state authorship, tradition tells us the authors of the gospel accounts.
I have a feeling that even if the gospels did state authorship, this is no reason for you to believe it anyway.

authorship of the four canon gospels:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism#New_Testament

More detail and sources in the individual articles of each gospel.

“Tradition” is a similarly fallacious argument from authority.

wasmit:
-The author was not a miracle expert,

how do YOU know this?
Regardless … you don’t have to be an automotive engineer to witness a car being driven.

Burden of Proof

wasmit:
-The author was writing third, or fourth, or tenth hand.

how do YOU know this?
Two of the gospel accounts are from apostles, one is from a student of Paul, one is from a student of Peter and Paul.

see first response

wasmit:
-On this issue, there is disagreement with the other three canon gospels.

How do you know this?
Silence on the part of three gospels does not equal disagreement.

I agree, perhaps I should not have used the word “disagreement”. I was wrong here.

wasmit:
The apostle John was not the author of “John”.

How do YOU know this?
I disagree with you.
On what basis do you KNOW that the apostle John was not the author?
The only evidence I will accept from you is if you were sitting in the room and witness first hand the person actually writing the gospel of John … and that fellow wasn’t John the apostle.

Brown, Raymond Edward; Paul J Achtemeier (1978). Mary in the New Testament. p. 198.

Almost all modern experts agree that the apostle john was not the author.

This is an example of a non-fallacious argument from authority.

wasmit:
How do you know that “Jesus connected Mary and the apostle John in a very special way while He was on the cross.” ?

It’s also written in scripture… and I appeal to the authority of scripture and trust the testimony of the Christians of every century since that affirm what I believe.

“I belive this because I believe it” ? That’s not very convincing for a person other than you.

wasmit:
The apostle John would have been many years dead when the book of John was written.

How do YOU know this?
Tell me the date that John died … and the date the Gospel of John was written.
Were you there? … or are you trusting someone else to tell you (appealing to authority?) that the apostle John was dead many years before the book of John was written?

I said “would have been”, not “was”. Given an accepted date of 90-100 for the writing of the gospel, and a generously young age of 20 during Jesus’ active preaching (30ce), and the low life expectancy at the time (~30) link The apostles would have been at least 80 (i.e. dead) in the year 90.

wasmit:
The apostle John was not the author of “John”.

***HOW ***do you know this?

See first response

wasmit:
I have asked “how do you know this” and “how do I know this”, and not received a reply.

You’ve stated many things here as absolutes, for which you have no proof.
Can you answer your own question for these statments?

michel

I have never been to alaska.

 

[cazayoux]

wasmit:
-The author is unidentified (for the 4 canon gospels. I don’t know about the other sections)

how do YOU know this?
While the scripture itself doesn’t state authorship, tradition tells us the authors of the gospel accounts.
I have a feeling that even if the gospels did state authorship, this is no reason for you to believe it anyway.

authorship of the four canon gospels:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism#New_Testament

More detail and sources in the individual articles of each gospel.

“Tradition” is a similarly fallacious argument from authority.

You appeal to authority. How do you say ‘using these authorities is non-fallacious, but using those authorities are fallacious’? How do you decide which authorities are more trustworthy. The ones that refute (with conjecture), you seem to trust as authoritative. Seems to be a double standard. Not to mention … wiki? … itself is not very authoritative.

wasmit:
-The author was not a miracle expert,

how do YOU know this?
Regardless … you don’t have to be an automotive engineer to witness a car being driven.

Burden of Proof

I think you made a statement … ‘the author was not a miracle expert’.
The two points here are (1) that you have no proof of your statement … and (2) you don’t have to be a miracle expert to witness a miracle.

wasmit:
-The author was writing third, or fourth, or tenth hand.

how do YOU know this?
Two of the gospel accounts are from apostles, one is from a student of Paul, one is from a student of Peter and Paul.

see first response

Your selective appeal to authority?

wasmit:
The apostle John was not the author of “John”.

How do YOU know this?
I disagree with you.
On what basis do you KNOW that the apostle John was not the author?
The only evidence I will accept from you is if you were sitting in the room and witness first hand the person actually writing the gospel of John … and that fellow wasn’t John the apostle.

Brown, Raymond Edward; Paul J Achtemeier (1978). Mary in the New Testament. p. 198.

Almost all modern experts agree that the apostle john was not the author.

This is an example of a non-fallacious argument from authority.

Selective appeal to authority.
‘almost all’ … i think I’ll need you to back this up … why are only ‘modern’ experts selected in the sample … and of these ‘modern’ experts, I’ll need a list of all ‘modern’ experts and a checklist showing which way each believes. As well, specifically for those that support your position, I need to know their credentials and by what proof they make their claims. What resources have they used and how can we determine the veracity of the claims of those resources.

wasmit:
How do you know that “Jesus connected Mary and the apostle John in a very special way while He was on the cross.” ?

It’s also written in scripture… and I appeal to the authority of scripture and trust the testimony of the Christians of every century since that affirm what I believe.

“I belive this because I believe it” ? That’s not very convincing for a person other than you.

I’m not stating ‘i believe this because I believe it’.
I’m stating that I trust scripture, history and tradition in this area.
This is MY appeal to authority.
You judging it as fallacious, does not bother me in the least.
You seem to judge the fallaciousness of one source or another with bias.

wasmit:
The apostle John would have been many years dead when the book of John was written.

How do YOU know this?
Tell me the date that John died … and the date the Gospel of John was written.
Were you there? … or are you trusting someone else to tell you (appealing to authority?) that the apostle John was dead many years before the book of John was written?

I said “would have been”, not “was”. Given an accepted date of 90-100 for the writing of the gospel, and a generously young age of 20 during Jesus’ active preaching (30ce), and the low life expectancy at the time (~30) link The apostles would have been at least 80 (i.e. dead) in the year 90.

Not sure how you determine that ~30 years old was the life expectancy at the time.
Proof?
I mean … Jesus was 33 when crucified. Do you think he was the oldest guy around … even in comparison to the high council?
Seems like you consider wiki the non-fallacious authoritative source for quite a bit.

Seems like you have a double standard for authoritative sources.
You trust a book from 1978 to have a better assessment of 2000 years ago than the consistent teaching all throughout that 2000 years.

michel

 

[Primox]

I agree that the many gospels show what a particular group of people beleived at the time that they were written.

Are you saying that the four canon gospels is all the evidence is going to be?

No, I wouldn’t say so. Miracles are great evidence, but hard to come by, sure. Much of what I consider evidence is that the guidance the Lord brings (or is it just a voice in my head) is a lot different than a) the guidance I’d take from my own experiences b) the guidance I expect from God.

For me, it’s the Gospels that reveal God further. Nothing could seem more from God than his word, but there’s a tendency to look at the word and not into it. For me, the reality of God is in the inner chamber. Consder the following make-shift dialogue (it’s a bit heavy though, read it carefully):

Christian: There is an indication of God’s presence through prayer – in the inner chamber, as it is said.
Sceptic: That is imagination, they are just cognitions, albeit factitious ones, but just like all others
Christian: They are indeed cognitions, but they are not like all others.
Sceptic: No, some cognitions are about going to school or making a sandwich, and others are about God.
Christian: In more ways than subject-difference, are the cognitions different.
Sceptic: Then you’ve manufactured a feeling of self-transcendence in relation to an invisible God.
Christian: There is indeed transcendence by some nature, but that feeling is not what typifies the experience either
Sceptic: Well then you feel a sense of intellectual or psychological endowment by virtue of reflection on things
Christian: It’s true that I feel a sense of endowment, but by focus, not reflection. If my attention is fixed upon a dot in the middle of a screen, then there are neither reflections made, nor conclusions drawn regarding any other thing. So it is similar with prayer: focusing upon God and not my affairs, nor the affairs of others, nor the dealings of life, nor God’s attributes, nor my problems, nor my fortunes, nor myself in any way, but God alone. Unlike fixing upon a dot, however, cognitions do enter into consciousness.
Sceptic: A testament to weak attention at best – what you call fixing upon God, is actually a poor attention-span, with bombarding cognitions competing for the centre of your focus.
Christian: It would seem that is the case only until we consider the nature of the cognitions: they are edifying, prophetic, comforting, guiding, admonishing, and perhaps the most interesting, contrary to my own set of beliefs.
Sceptic: why is it that no other Christians testify to the nature of experience in this way? Why are so many other Christians ambiguous about what experience they’ve had with God? Why do so many Christians doubt?
Christian: The simple answer is, it is a difficult experience to articulate, for one, because it is a supernatural tenant and therefore not analogous to many things in the natural world – only by their interaction do Christians make inferences. The more thorough explanation is that experience isn’t evident all the time – this is because of our infirmity, our limitations, and our weakness on matters of faith. The fact that our faith is inconsistent makes prayer inconsistent, which brings about doubt; doubt, but not dismissal – the experience, in its rigor, has an extremely long shelf-life, even in the face of opposition.
Sceptic: For all I know, all of that explanation is nonsense.
Christian: Reasonably. If I explained the experience of Love to someone who has neither loved, nor ever been loved, they would conclude Love wasn’t real; that it was wish-fulfilment; that it’s the illusion in my mind brought about by so many millions of chemical reactions. But would you dare deny me my own perception?

 

[grannymh]

Quote: from grannymh
And how does one learn history? What about non-verbal belief like going to a museum?

Quote from wasmit: School? Instruction? I don’t really know what you are meaning here.

What I am saying is that we regularly learn about events in the past from others. Even a museum teaches us through exhibits. Most of the time, we assume that credentials are correct. This is the “how” we learn normally.

I did check out your link nizkor.org/features/falla…authority.html I really doubt that this would be applied to every lesson taught by every teacher. However, it is important to know because there are individual times when it should be used. For me, I believe that this type of reasoning regarding the Bible was used in the first centuries of the Catholic Church. And I accept those decisions. I don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[wasmit]

You appeal to authority. How do you say ‘using these authorities is non-fallacious, but using those authorities are fallacious’? How do you decide which authorities are more trustworthy.

I judge an appeal to authority with these criteria:

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

‘almost all’ … i think I’ll need you to back this up … why are only ‘modern’ experts selected in the sample … and of these ‘modern’ experts, I’ll need a list of all ‘modern’ experts and a checklist showing which way each believes. As well, specifically for those that support your position, I need to know their credentials and by what proof they make their claims. What resources have they used and how can we determine the veracity of the claims of those resources.

Stephen Harris (Methodist), in Undertanding the Bible (1985) wrote “Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them.”
This is also mentioned in Brown and Achtemeier’s 1978 Mary in the New Testament. (Brown is Catholic, Achtemeier I don’t know)

The following authors mention that the author of the fourth Gospel is anoynomous:
Delbert Burkett’s An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, (2002) (personal religion unknown to me)
F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (1994), (Frederick Bruce is Christian)

Further, the fourth Gospel is an intellectual account of the life of Jesus, and the Acts of the Apostles refers to the apostle John as illiterate (4.13).

This is why I consider it extremely likely that the author of the fourth Gospel is not the Apostle John, and is unknown apart from that.

Not sure how you determine that ~30 years old was the life expectancy at the time.
Proof?

I mean … Jesus was 33 when crucified. Do you think he was the oldest guy around …

Do you know how tthe concept of life expectancy works?

 

[cazayoux]

Stephen Harris (Methodist), in Undertanding the Bible (1985) wrote “Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, *modern scholars believe *that he wrote none of them.”

Looks like even your authority appeals to authority. (fallaciously?)

This is also mentioned in Brown and Achtemeier’s 1978 Mary in the New Testament. (Brown is Catholic, Achtemeier I don’t know)

Fallacious appeal to authority.

The following authors mention that the author of the fourth Gospel is anoynomous:
Delbert Burkett’s An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, (2002) (personal religion unknown to me)
F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (1994), (Frederick Bruce is Christian)

No argument here … the writing does not have an intro stating who wrote it.
Saying the writing doesn’t state the writer is clear from the writing.
No conjecture here.
This is no way supports a statement that John did not write it.

Further, the fourth Gospel is an intellectual account of the life of Jesus, and the Acts of the Apostles refers to the apostle John as illiterate (4.13).

So you don’t believe that John wrote anything that is in the new testament?

Acts 4:13 (KJV)
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

This doesn’t actually say what you *want *it to say.
It does not say Peter and John were illiterate.
It does not even say Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant.
It says they were PERCEIVED as unlearned and ignorant.

*This is why I consider it *extremely likely that the author of the fourth Gospel is not the Apostle John, and is unknown apart from that.

Realizing how poorly you’ve interpreted that one passage, it may be time to re-evaluate your considerations.

Do you know how tthe concept of life expectancy works?

I await your enlightenment, your proof (or even your biased conjecture) as to why John (or any other new testament character) couldn’t have lived very long lives.

If 30 years was the life expectancy … why do we see a man healed in his forties (Acts 4).
What was the life expectancy in Moses’ time?
He was forty before he ever took his people out of Egypt … and his journey was far from over.

Point is … you appeal to authority.
YOU decide which authorities are fallacious or not.
You have your criteria for deciding which scholars are fallacious or not.
So do I.
Mine are just different criteria.
Centuries of consistency from learned men … actually means something to me.

michel