Miracles to convince me, a non-believer

[Bradskii]

You are DEFINITELY not reading what I write.

Go back and check. Read a little slower. Stop skimming the posts.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Again your opinion and not one specific historic event named individually, to
Back up your opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

This is not the view held by the majority of biblical scholars about the evidence.

Perhaps… but have you ever looked into why they suggest a late date for the Gospels?

The reason is simple: Mark is widely considered by contemporary scholars to have been the first Gospel committed to writing. In chapter 13 of Mark, we see Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. So, scholars place the composition of Mark as later than 70 AD (and the composition of the other Gospels even later) on the basis that Jesus would have been unable to make that prediction (or that Mark ‘faked’ the prediction following the actual historical event of the destruction).

From the perspective of the viewpoint of a Christian, that presumption is simply untenable.

As it is, the argument from the perspective that Jesus is not the Son of God isn’t reasonable for a Christian… even a Christian scholar.

(Others have suggested a late date due to the observation that the Gospels don’t mention one another (explicitly), nor do the writings of the late 1st century AD. However, the writings of Clement and Ignatius contain paraphrases and allusions to Gospel verses. Claims of a ‘late authorship’ don’t survive very well, in the face of these observations.)

Are there Scripture scholars – even Christian Scripture scholars – who claim late authorship and therefore, limited historicity? Yes, of course. However, the scholars whose work I consider most convincing – e.g., Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre, and others – argues for early authorship by eyewitnesses and those who wrote down their words.

Suggest having a look at Bart Herman’s works. They are very convincing.

Bart Ehrman is hostile to Christianity. In fact, he’s publicly stated that he’s a pure materialist, and that he believes that there is nothing beyond the physical universe. Now, ask yourself this question: how will that perspective color his scholarship? Do you think there’s a snowball’s chance that he’ll offer a critique of the Gospels that allows for the possibility that Jesus is who He says He is in those texts? Of course not.

So, if that’s your worldview, I understand why you are drawn to Ehrman’s analysis and find it compelling. I think you’ll understand why a Christian cannot accept his scholarly views, though… right? If our conclusions are at odds with his, our view of his analysis will be, as well.

 

[Gorgias]

Bart Ehrman is a bad word around these parts…or so I’ve been led to believe. I agree with you. He is the most unbiased scholar I have read and listened to.

Unbiased? Seriously?

Nah… it’s just that you and he share the same bias.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

I did Theology. And it is proven, and we were shown all the Evidence. The Gospels DO REFER TO EACH OTHER, there are whole exerpts of exact lines used in each of the Gospels almost identically, proving they ALL refer to each other, because they use line for line exact quotes for specific events or dialogues in places.

 

[misstherese]

This is also a great and scientific book, no bias. If you want to know about the miraculous life of St. Padre Pio, this is the way to go. The Vatican was very skeptical of St. Padre Pio and sent in some investigators to check it out.

https://www.amazon.com/Padre-Pio-Under-Investigation-Vatican/dp/1586174053

 

[Bradskii]

Again your opinion and not one specific historic event named individually, to
Back up your opinion.

OK, buddy. First and last time I repeat myself for you. From now on you can exhibit the length of your attention span all by yourself.

‘The miracle was in Zeitoun incidentally.’

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Zeitoun

Different Christian faiths experience miracles too, why? Because they still worship the same God of christianity despite having a few differences.

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=381969
EWTN Catholic Apologist states: The Pope left the decision of Zeitoun up to the Coptic Church because it happened in the Coptic Orthodox Faith. And fhe Orthodox Church approved it.

The Vatican never condemned the miracles. They were looked upon favourably. It was outside the Pope’s jurisdiction because they occured in the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Faith, so it was up to the Orthodox Faith to approve or disapprove of these apparitions.

The Coptic Church quickly recognized these apparitions. Pope Blessed Paul VI sent two envoys to Zeitoun when the apparitions occurred. While the pope received favorable accounts, the Vatican could not officially comment upon the authenticity of the apparitions, as they occurred in an Orthodox church.

the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, launched an investigation. At the same time, a group of Catholic nuns who saw the apparition sent a report to the Vatican, who in turn sent their own team to investigate, and who also the apparition. Because the apparition was on a Coptic church, though, the Vatican decided to let the Coptic Church officials make a ruling.

Which they did on May 5th, 1968: the apparition was declared as authentic by the Coptic Church.

The Egyptian government also did an investigation and publicly accepted the apparitions to be real as well.

Name a Roman Catholic apparition that was declared false by the Vatican.

 

[Zaccheus]

Stories written years after the events they purport to report in an entirely different language from the participants do not represent evidence. They are stories of no more value than any other stories.

So the accounts in French history of the French Revolution are not evidence and we have no reason to believe the Revolution ever happened, nor that Napoleon Bonaparte existed.

Also we are not to believe that Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, nor Adolf Hitler, were real, since the accounts are in the German language and speak of events generations in the past.

This part of claims of miracles can and should be tested to appropriately extraordinary standards, given the extraordinary nature of the claims.

I think you mean reproducibility. Prove that miraculous healings happen by having someone healed under laboratory conditions. Prove that Jesus turned water into wine by having someone do that today with chemists at hand to analyze the result.

In which case: prove that the Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter to begin the American Civil War. Recreate a “Firing upon Fort Sumter” event for the skeptics to witness and for the video cameras to record.
Prove that the signing of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States was a real historical event. Recreate a “Signing of the Preamble” event for the skeptics to witness.

You can’t? Because those were unique events in history? Well yes. You can’t prove unique events by reproducing them. You need some other methods of proof.

Well, so was the Resurrection unique. So was the healing of the Gadarene demoniac. So was the healing of the man born blind–the one who said of Jesus: “I don’t know if he is a sinner or not. But I know I was blind and now I see.”

The standard of proof you want is in fact not appropriate to the nature of the claim being made. Some other form of evidence must be sought.

 

[Gorgias]

it is proven, and we were shown all the Evidence. The Gospels DO REFER TO EACH OTHER, there are whole exerpts of exact lines used in each of the Gospels almost identically, proving they ALL refer to each other, because they use line for line exact quotes for specific events or dialogues in places.

I’m assuming you’re replying to me, and my mention of the fact that some who hold to a “late authorship” theory of the Gospels also make the claim that the Gospels don’t mention one another?

If so… hold on a second.

Are you talking about the ‘Synoptic Problem’? And, along with it, the two-source hypothesis (which posits that Mark and Q were sources for Matthew and Luke)?

This doesn’t show that the Gospels mention each other. Rather, it shows that some of them used others as primary sources. This would demonstrate a dependency (as well as an awareness) of the other Gospel.

The problem is that we can’t say for certain which one came first: Mark or Matthew. Folks will make claims for Markan priority or Matthean priority, but scholars aren’t unanimous on the issue (although most hold to Markan priority these days).

But, they don’t explicitly reference each other. Luke’s intro might be the closest thing to a cross-reference.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Amen. Amen. Amen.
10 characters.

 

[Eddie18]

Totally illogical. There is no event in this world that can be compared to the miracle at Fatima. It is entirely unique, and evidence must be looked at piece by piece. The very specific prediction by the children alone guarantees a supernatural connection, before even looking at any other evidence.

It sounds to me like you are afraid to look into it knowing that you will find the miracle is true!

 

[tp3192000]

Really? You think the Italian scientist’s cartoon looks like the Shroud? Those are some kind of colored glasses you are wearing.

 

[VeryBlessed]

To toss in another example and possibly a resource to check, Lee Strobel just released a book, “The Case for Miracles”. I heard him on a radio interview where he cited the story of a woman named Barbara Snyder, who was instantly healed while in hospice after years of degenerative MS. Google it - it’s pretty cool. Lee was a skeptic of Christianity himself, of course. But, my favorite miracle is the way God turned MY life around when I gave him a chance. Not scientically provable, and yet, so very real. Science is great but it has its limits because science doesn’t yet know what it doesn’t yet know… you know what I mean? I hope you can be open to the possibility of the existence of something bigger than science… Good luck in your search.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

All the cross references prove they were aware of the other gospels. There are dozens and dozens of cross references throughout all 4 gospels.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

The OP says:

You say, despite every single miracle of the catholic church that is medically or scientifically proven:
‘Nope, I want this type of miracle. That type of miracle is too small. Nope it has to have happened in a laboratory.’

The evidence is there. You just refuse to accept the evidence that is provided to you.

You fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah:
‘These people will see but never perceive.
Hear but never listen.’

Lawyers and police accept evidence as evidence. It doesn’t matter about the type of evidence. Because evidence is still evidence whatever about its type.

When was the last time you healed a sick person using the Name of Jesus? Saying curing diseases is not miraculous…

If you were genuinely interested in the catholic faith you would accept the type of evidence available as evidence. Same as a police officer, or detective or lawyer or judge would accept any type of evidence as evidence. Evidence is evidence regardless of its type.

Also: the type of evidence you are looking for DOES exist, if you read the lives of the saints, many of them were investigated by doctors or scientists (who were aetheists). Such as Padre Pio’s stigmata was investigated by an aetheist doctor who CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

All these aetheists stating their ‘opinions’,

In a thread where they ‘ask for evidence’

And refuse to look at any evidence provided.

Thank goodness none of you became judges, or lawyers, or policemen, because you would have based all your cases on ‘opinions’ and ignored and not looked at any evidence offered.

 

[Bradskii]

Nice that you’ve looked into it a little. But amazing isn’t it. The actual mother of Jesus regularly appeared over a period of months to hundreds of thousands and yet you had never heard of it.

I don’t know how much detail you’ve gone into. Maybe seen some pictures. But it sounds like if the Coptic church has given it the thumbs up then it’s good enough for you. Yet the Vatican remains rather quiet on the matter. A Marion apparition and they don’t formally recognise it? With all that evidence? Much more than the evidence available for any other miracle I know of.

And I must say that your request for a ‘Roman Catholic’ miracle had be chuckling. As if Mary herself could not be considered such. I guess if Mary appeared in India then the Vatican would excuse itself on the grounds that it was up to the Hindus to authenticate it.

Anyway. If you have seen the pictures of the Zeitoun apparition, do you consider them credible? There’s something odd about them that’s got me thinking that they are not entirely genuine. And I think that the Vatican agrees. In that too much information is not a good thing as the miracle can be proved false.

Let me know if you can spot what they probably did. Time for you to ‘look at the evidence’ as it were.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

I have heard of it.

You yourself wouldn’t refer to any evidence until post one hundred and something.

 

[Gorgias]

All the cross references prove they were aware of the other gospels. There are dozens and dozens of cross references throughout all 4 gospels.

Primarily the Synoptics, though, right?

And, moreover, correspondences don’t tell us which Gospel was aware of the others, right?