Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[GaryTaylor]

No, we have first hand accounts in Mark, Matthew, John and Paul and compiled accounts from Luke. This is more like having direct access to Bradski’s brother than through Bradski.

At least, let’s accurately depict what we are dealing with rather than what you want us to think we are dealing with.

I “think” Bradski admits Jesus died on the Cross, historically wouldn’t we agree? And yes I think with the NT-27 we have to admit historically the christian catholic church which historically became the “Catholic Church” and then view this concrete evidence no different and without bias than all historical evidence.

Yes though the points above and on-going theory of a miracle. What is its definition as depending on what we agree upon here I think it would help.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle

an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

[thus] an extraordinary event manifesting [possible] divine intervention in human affairs

Or how should we go about this definition of miracle? Could we even reduce the wording to “possible”. Perhaps something more in depth as to what we are talking about.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/

 

[PRmerger]

Again, it would be literally impossible to say that no real ones exist. No-one is saying that and you are misrepresenting the argument.

I ask you to help me dig for what I believe are valuable coins in my garden. We find one and declare it be be genuine. You check it’s history, it’s metal content, you date it and it turns out to be counterfeit. I say we carry on digging. We find another. It turns out not to be real. Then another and another. I urge you to keep digging. But all the coins we find are counterfeit.

At some point you are going to suggest that the latest coin that we have just found is, in all likelihood, going to be counterfeit. If dozens have been found and all are fake, then that’s a reasonable assumption.

Eventually you are going to say: thanks, but I really have better things to do with my time. If someone asks you if there are valuable coins in my garden, your reply is likely to be: ‘Let me put it this way. We’ve checked dozens. They are all fake. I’ve given up expecting anyone to find a real one.’

With all due respect, I don’t think the above is an accurate representation of the search.

Rather, coins have been presented, and rather than examine them, a cursory glance is given, and then it is rejected.

CS Lewis gave a rather trenchant portrayal of this:

“Ain’t we all blind in the dark!” said Diggle.

“But it isn’t dark, you poor stupid Dwarfs,” said Lucy. “Can’t you see? Look up! Look round! Can’t you see the sky and the trees and the flowers? Can’t you see me?”

“How in the name of all Humbug can I see what ain’t there? And how can I see you any more than you can see me in this pitch darkness?”

“But I can see you,” said Lucy. “I’ll prove I can see you. You’ve got a pipe in your mouth.”

“Anyone that knows the smell of baccy could tell that,” said Diggle.

“Oh the poor things! This is dreadful,” said Lucy. Then she had an idea. She stopped and picked some wild violets. “Listen, Dwarf,” she said. “Even if your eyes are wrong, perhaps your nose is all right: can you smell that?” She leaned across and held the fresh, damp flowers to Diggle’s ugly nose. But she had to jump back quickly in order to avoid a blow from his hard little fist.

“None of that!” he shouted. “How dare you! What do you mean by shoving a lot of filthy stable-litter in my face? There was a thistle in it too. It’s like your sauce! And who are you anyway?”

mobilenovel.net/mobile/novels/chapter-thirteen-75/page/0/4
The dwarves insist they’re in a dank, fetid stable.
They’re actually in paradise.
All attempts to show them reality are scornfully rejected by these poor, obdurate dwarves.

 

[PRmerger]

Good morning, PR!
I’m starting to think that, in the end, we’ll have to agree to disagree…

Shoot! And I was having so much fun.

At any rate, agreeing to disagree is not very scientific, is it?

I’ve asked this before… how can we tell which religion is right, if any?

Well, before we go there, we’d have to concede that God exists.

Shall we do that for the sake of discussion?

NB: it is acknowledged that you are an atheist and you are granting the existence of God for the sake of dialogue. So please, if the conversation ensues, don’t divert with, “Well, I"m an atheist anyway, so…”

 

[Bradski]

Then there should always be this quiet little voice in the back of your head that’s bothersome to you as an atheist…

There’s billions of folks who’ve found at least 1 miracle to be convincing.

Let’s get some perspective here. I also cannot say that no-one has been abducted by aliens. I cannot say that it is 100% certain my life isn’t part of a computer simulation. I cannot say that it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that my wife doesn’t work for British Intelligence. But one has to be realistic.

And those billions? All coming to Christianity after much investigation of religion? After much work studying the veracity of the bible? Gimme a break, PR. A third of Americans don’t even believe in evolution. If they believe the world is 6,000 years old, I wouldn’t be holding them up as an example of theological acuity.

And what percentage do you think could even name what are traditionally considered to be the authors of the canonical gospels? How many would have any idea that there is serious doubt about the authorship? What language do most think that Jesus spoke? How many even know what nationality He was? How many could point out Israel or Palestine on a map?

From my own experience, with people I grew up with, I’d be on reasonably firm ground if I suggested that almost all Christians I knew (which would be virtually everybody) would be hard pressed to get any of those right.

They all grew up into Christianity. Into a Christian society. They were comfortable with it. It gave them a lot of meaning in their life. But I don’t think that anyone I knew actually studied it or looked at it critically. And I believe that that is the case with the vast majority of Christians.

So please, no more with the billions. Perhaps you’d like to give us another figure. One that represents all those who have done some reasonable research into the matter, have studied the evidence and would be able to counter any arguments that some one like myself could put forward.

 

[pocaracas]

Good points, I’ve read the thread and while I find it interesting I am uncertain about the position on a few issues.

Am I to understand its concrete evidence with you that this guy Jesus died on a Cross and we are yet to confirm any further evidence?

Many people died on crosses, at around that time.
Many “good” people are claimed to have been crucified, too… like the Teacher of Righteousness.
It seems Jesus’ teachings owe a lot to this other Teacher - perhaps he got them via some other intermediary, or maybe he got them from the Teacher himself… we can’t tell…
It’s also possible he came up with some of them independently - it’s not difficult to see that a culture of peace can be superior to one of war… it was the Pax Romana times, after all.
Some details of both tales are, however, not directly dependent on the teachings, but rather on what other he does convinced of their worth (certainly, it can be said that the same ideals lead to the same actions) - go against the established local religious leadership. And, in both cases, the reaction of said leadership is to denounce the preacher to the roman authorities that, promptly, have him crucified.
Not only that, but the followers of these two figures, according to their tales, think that he can resurrect.

At best, one of them did… at worst, none.
It is completely within the realm of possibility that this conviction that their favorite peaceful preacher would return from the dead did morph into the conviction that he did return from the dead, in a legendary fashion, akin to so many legends that sprout everywhere. It takes little more than a generation.
And, according to some dating methods, there were barely 2 generations between the time of the Teacher of righteousness and the time attributed to Jesus… or rather, the time of the so-called witnesses.

Of course, it is still possible that there was a Jesus more or less where and when he is claimed to have existed, who preached the same message as the Teacher, who gathered a following and who either died, or just decided to disappear. Upon such a loss, the old, still lurking, desire for the Teacher’s resurrection can have resurfaced and that legend got attached to the Jesus person, completely forgetting it’s origin.

These are just a few possibilities that can account for the present state of affairs.
Magic not required.

What would you consider to be a accurate definition of a miracle?

According to how I see them:

• multiplication of bread and fish
• turning water to the finest wine
• bringing dead people back to life
• healing incurable diseases

In one word? Magic.
One could add other magical feats found in other fictions:

• Turning people into animals and vice-versa
• Flying on brooms
• Split-second flawless repair of some damaged item
• Telekinesis
• Non-causal data gathering (i.e. acquiring information faster than light, or where no physical causal link is present)

Which accounts of the NT do you consider historically accurate?

I can’t tell… I never cataloged them…
But, generally, certain practices common to the people at the time. The manner in which tombs were made and used, with that stone in front.
Most of the teachings of Jesus, although some may have been by the Teacher, are likely to be legitimate teachings preached to the people. Even when he mentions God, the father - ties neatly with what I said earlier about the god of Israel - El - god the father… father of other gods.

Also we would have to admit the same paradigm of all parallel thinking thus concrete evidence for secular history, would you agree?

Certainly.
Where magic is evoked - ignore.
Where normal workings of men are concerned - pay attention.

For example so we could understand what we are talking in relation to evidence what would you say about this book?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthias

I never read it and have just found out about it in that wiki link.

At best, I can tell you that it seems such a text existed, at the time. More historical than this… I don’t think we can be… (but all I know is what’s on that wiki page - where this text is seen as apocryphal and used by heretics).
What else can be said about its historical value?
It seems it could have been later used as inspiration to muslims who think it best to cover themselves.

[continued…]

 

[pocaracas]

[continuation]

As to the above quote of yours. I don’t agree its a matter of lying. Perhaps all have some degree of truth but in fairness at this point we would have to admit the same for Christianity?

Yes. The message of peace and love is one of great power and which can be extremely positive. This is probably why it’s a message that pops up every now and again, in different societies.
The attached God…meh… a remnant of the old mythologies… is my guess.

The truth is that people, most people, just want to live and let live.
The message of peace and love then appeals to the majority of the population. Obviously!

The lies start when the God is brought on board - magic is claimed. Mind you, the people who wrote the texts, or the people who are claimed to have been tortured because of such the message in those texts, may have been just thoroughly convinced of their veracity.
It was common, at the time, to believe in the existence of gods. People coexisted with other people who believed in a different set of gods.
It was a way to keep some of the great questions at bay, leave them for philosophers…

Also as to strict non believers of the supernatural as opposed to believers, comes back to the above definition of miracle? Would you say its fair to admit both as the possible truth for the moment. Seems to me both have a good case and its rather meaningless to insist one is delusional the other misinformed etc. I mean we would be calling what percentage of the world delusional and the other simply un blessed misinformed not elected or whatever wording is appropriate to what avail to create disharmony.

Each view has its place, yes.
I cannot accept that miracles, as define above, happen, until I see properly documented evidence for them… well…“I see” can be the same as some international and independent group analyzes it and concludes that it is untampered, unphotoshopped, real.

Just saying its seems on this thread the idea Jesus existed and died on a Cross is established or no?

After all I wrote, where would you say I stand on that judgement?

Peace

Peace and love!

 

[Bradski]

With all due respect, I don’t think the above is an accurate representation of the search.

Rather, coins have been presented, and rather than examine them, a cursory glance is given, and then it is rejected.

Lights on a roof, levitation, miraculous cures, day trips to hell, dancing Suns…

Well, billions believe them, so they must be true. That, in fact, is your strongest argument. And the easiest to refute. And of course: ‘we only need one and you can’t deny it’s impossible, therefore…well, big numbers and stuff’.

Well, it’s true. You only need one. And considering the number of them claimed and the amount of time available it should be a cast iron certainty that one coin is going to turn up that is 100%, undeniably cast iron genuine. Therein lies your problem.

Oh, and there is a third. If God actually proved He existed by means of an incontrovertible miracle, then there would be no requirement for faith.

 

[pocaracas]

Shoot! And I was having so much fun.

At any rate, agreeing to disagree is not very scientific, is it?

It is a white flag.
I also seem to read somewhere that this forum has a cap on the number of posts in any given thread… 1000. We’re still far from it, but getting up to a third…

Well, before we go there, we’d have to concede that God exists.

Shall we do that for the sake of discussion?

NB: it is acknowledged that you are an atheist and you are granting the existence of God for the sake of dialogue. So please, if the conversation ensues, don’t divert with, “Well, I"m an atheist anyway, so…”

I see you used the uppercase G, there…
Am I to grant you the existence of the one true God™?
With that, Magic is possible, Magic has been used on this planet and hence anything is possible… even dead men rising.
If I grant you that, the conversation is over… check-mate in 1.

Now, if I grant you a simpler god, the deist one, the one you arrive at through all those arguments, then we may have something.
I’d be willing to do this.
For the sake of discussion:
The creator god exists.
We know nothing more about him.
Carry on.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Maybe, if you try to read what other people are writing, you won’t say such ludicrous things…

No one is saying “therefore, no god”. We say, “therefore, no god seems to be required for that particular task”

Well, that’s just it. You haven’t even come close to showing “no God seems to be required for that particular task” because the task itself remains behind a heavy curtain seemingly (name removed by moderator)enetrable by the gaze of science. You have no clue what is required for that particular task, therefore it is far too preliminary to claim “no God required,” unless you are looking for an excuse – any old excuse, in fact – to make that claim.

 

[meltzerboy]

Round and round he goes!
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen!

We can’t know how things happened way back then.
There’s something blocking that information… that something is called Big Bang.
What we have are theories that attempt to provide an explanation for it, based on physical phenomena that can be demonstrated to be accurate.
If this is what you consider magic, then I think you need to review your concept.

Can you assert that there is true nothingness?
Nothing, no particles, no fields, no nothing?

The theory, if you had listened to the three minutes of that Nobel Laureate’s little interview that I linked earlier, is that the fields extend to infinity. Hence, no part of space-time is absent of these fields… true nothingness is impossible.
So… where’s the magic in this view?

###########

It Is a biggie, yes…
But a bit moldy… let’s try to establish some clearer miracles, before we proceed to that.
You need to take me through the baby steps process

Oh my… you’re full of flawed analogies, today…

There are Olympics every 4 years, widely publicized, televised and viewed by millions of people.
You can even go on to the World cup (football, or soccer), again, every 4 years, even more viewed than the Olympics (in some countries).

On the other hand… miracles reported by ancient people… people starving for a prophet, yearning for release from the Jewish traditions and laws.

Oh… so why not Islam?
Why not Hinduism?
Why not Jainism?

If there is a God, then yes, it is very likely that some miracle occurred at some point… even more than one.
If there is no such thing as God, or gods, then it is very unlikely that such a thing ever happened.

Weren’t we trying to do it the other way around?

• Prove that miracles happen ->> reason that there must be some god…?

#############

The trouble is that all those 20 arguments seem to have some niggling faults.
Faults that, from a believing point of view, may be difficult to spot… that’s why you provide them.
Also, at best, those get you to a deist god - the disinterested creator god who then moved on to greener pastures and forgot about this Universe. What then?

################

Yep, and he then went further… keep an eye on that, you should.

Your point that “true nothingness is impossible” is an interesting one. We do have a philosophical concept of nothingness, which makes it hard to believe that something could come from nothing without more than a little help. But if there is no such thing as nothingness, according to science, that, I would think, changes the discussion a bit. Does science state that nothingness is impossible?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Many people died on crosses, at around that time.
Many “good” people are claimed to have been crucified, too…

True yet we historically have Jesus Christ in question who seems to have been portrayed in the arts, literature and historically and since this period documented through scripture and church history along with secular history. Why would we dismiss the Church history in relation any more than any other secular evidence or the preponderance of historians who believe Christ existed and was crucified? Or would you say we need a fresh look at history and all coinciding evidence as to factual history in general.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Teacher of Righteousness

Do think the same preponderance of evidence exists historically in relation to above and is it a historical fact they are connected or simply theory and speculation? So we can admit theory and speculation as valid to Christ?

It seems Jesus’ teachings owe a lot to this other Teacher

How do you factually arrive at this but assumption all religion is somehow related but I’m talking a factual person of which a religion followed till this day. Isn’t it first the object to assert he existed died on a Cross via Pilot and what else? The historical documentation which followed and what can be admitted historically?

It’s also possible he came up with some of them independently -
Not only that, but the followers of these two figures, according to their tales, think that he can resurrect.

Its possible Christ was God as he claimed too, however the “golden rule” does seem to be a predominate factor and even with atheism and historically. Its possible Christ bought a new meaning to this also from the OT. At any rate in some loose regard wouldn’t it be fair to say this belief arrives from religion and is somewhat worldwide or where did it arrive?

At best, one of them did… at worst, none.

At best the documentation in the case of Jesus is accurately documented and consistently through history of the sequence of events since man has certainly remembered this guy Jesus for 2000 years. What is a better known book than the Bible? For someone who isn’t who he said there certainly exists tons of coexisting belief in which the Bible seems most significant along with the oral tradition.

It is completely within the realm of possibility that this conviction that their favorite peaceful preacher would return from the dead did morph into the conviction that he did return from the dead,

Its possible Jesus is who he said he is too and may have known the guy which may or not be relevant what does history tell us about that?

Of course, it is still possible that there was a Jesus more or less where.

These are just a few possibilities that can account for the present state of affairs.
Magic not required.

Of course Jesus could be exactly who he said he was and as to magic I’m talking about the reality of a miracle which appears defined, maybe we should even remove its very idea from webster and secular thinking and philosophy or redefine the word as not to confuse educated peoples. We would be saying we can systematically explain all which can’t be explained in the universe outside our factual understanding of nature. But you admit earlier our nature may be subject to other than is assumed by us being a computer game? Or assuming an explanation exists without qualification which I should believe why? Maybe we should say the unknown reality of the onset of our existence exists to which we are qualifying how this came into being thus us existing. Lots of theories and mysteries but no facts, but Jesus existed? So facts matter here also? So we should continue to seek the understanding of dark matter and energy and what do you call them as far as factual? I wouldn’t call that magic would you? Its an assumption to suggest this is even natural order as there is no reason to believe its not supernatural thus mystery i.e. miracle?

I can’t tell… I never cataloged them…
But, generally, certain practices common to the people at the time. The manner in which tombs were made and used, with that stone in front. Most of the teachings of Jesus

Me either no time, but, in the case of Christ we are discussing. Yet this historic belief has existed since Christ. Man hasn’t reached a more educated state of understanding in this regard to religion or Christ, as opposed to not believing as by your own words non-believers appear as the non historic paradigm of peoples. And admittedly no? What would accredit this to miracle and blessing?

Certainly.
Where magic is evoked - ignore.
Where normal workings of men are concerned - pay attention.

Magic, mystery, miracle or unproven theory thus conjecture seems like semantics? Believers and I suppose non believers always existed.

I never read it and have just found out about it in that wiki link.

At best, I can tell you that it seems such a text existed, at the time. More historical than this… I don’t think we can be… (but all I know is what’s on that wiki page - where this text is seen as apocryphal and used by heretics).
What else can be said about its historical value?
It seems it could have been later used as inspiration to muslims who think it best to cover themselves.

[continued…]

I don’t know your more trusting than I, I would say we would have to believe the Church as it historically documented, why wouldn’t I believe them in other regards then?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh, and there is a third. If God actually proved He existed by means of an incontrovertible miracle, then there would be no requirement for faith.

Well, there would remain the requirement of explicating precisely who or what it is that you are to have faith in – which is the more important question AND the reason why miracles as phenomena are largely superfluous.

After all, for someone like Σίμων ὁ μάγος it wouldn’t matter very much the reasons for having omnipotence or the power to do wonderous deeds since access to that power, simpliciter, would be profitable and the means to a great payoff.

So, spelliing out exactly who we are to have faith in and what is the nature of that Being is more important than merely the implications with regard to a “requirement for faith.” This is why miracles, in and of themselves, do not determine the nature of faith. Far more important to believe in the Way, the Truth and the Life. Blessed is he who has not seen [wonders and signs], but has believed [in the true nature and being of God.]

This is why I suspect that whether you are an atheist or theist won’t matter so much, as far as belief goes, but your motives for being one or the other will be distilled and weighed. Even that, however, is a mere precursor to the real question of “What did you become while on earth?” and "Is that ‘what’ worthy of eternal life?’ Not affording oneself of the benefits of grace will be a real disadvantage – to understate the point – in that regard.

C.S. Lewis’ distinction between Bios and Zoe may be helpful at this point along with an honest appraisal of why any person would be, psychologically speaking, resistent to the possibility of God (upper case) in the first place.

 

[pocaracas]

Well, that’s just it. You haven’t even come close to showing “no God seems to be required for that particular task” because the task itself remains behind a heavy curtain seemingly (name removed by moderator)enetrable by the gaze of science. You have no clue what is required for that particular task, therefore it is far too preliminary to claim “no God required,” unless you are looking for an excuse – any old excuse, in fact – to make that claim.

The basic theory is demonstrated with several experiments.
I guess Krauss just took it and extrapolated it to a pre-Universe state as a hypothesis of how the Universe may have come about.
It doesn’t seem to be verifiable, true. But it’s thought provoking, to say the least.

“that claim” comes as an objection of the sole outcome found in a few arguments, such as the one from change, or Kalam.

Where no information can be gathered, we should do well by assuming a minimum about it.
A god carries a whole lot of baggage… space-time seems to just be there… surely, all this quantum foam and virtual particles does mean that space-time also carries some baggage. But, to me, it seems a more reasonable baggage… even if the real mechanism of Universe formation is completely different.

 

[pocaracas]

Your point that “true nothingness is impossible” is an interesting one. We do have a philosophical concept of nothingness, which makes it hard to believe that something could come from nothing without more than a little help. But if there is no such thing as nothingness, according to science, that, I would think, changes the discussion a bit. Does science state that nothingness is impossible?

Good question… I don’t know.
You’d need someone more knowledgeable in QCD, than I…

I think the equations stretch out to infinity and so, everywhere, something is in there.

 

[pocaracas]

True yet we historically have Jesus Christ in question who seems to have been portrayed in the arts, literature and historically and since this period documented through scripture and church history along with secular history. Why would we dismiss the Church history in relation any more than any other secular evidence or the preponderance of historians who believe Christ existed and was crucified? Or would you say we need a fresh look at history and all coinciding evidence as to factual history in general.

I see your point.
One cannot say the early church was a disinterested party in forwarding it’s own story, to the detriment of any other…
Arts come later…
Literature… many other items of literature propose a different view of the Jesus character - others still propose other divine characters - Mohamed springs to mind! Should we take all of them as historical? Or just the ones that became more prevalent. Is prevalence a measure of the truthfulness of the religious claim?

Secular history does detail the presence of christians, people believing that the Christ died on the cross and resurrected, on the 2nd century at Rome. This does not mean that secular history acknowledges that this Christ person actually did that, 100 years earlier, in Jerusalem.

Do think the same preponderance of evidence exists historically in relation to above and is it a historical fact they are connected or simply theory and speculation? So we can admit theory and speculation as valid to Christ?

I’ve said it more than once that the Teacher may have just been a figure in a tale.
The historical fact is that someone wrote that story prior to the alleged preaching by Jesus… and that story does have a series of astonishing coincidences with the one told of Jesus.

How do you factually arrive at this but assumption all religion is somehow related but I’m talking a factual person of which a religion followed till this day. Isn’t it first the object to assert he existed died on a Cross via Pilot and what else? The historical documentation which followed and what can be admitted historically?

What can be admitted historically?

Its possible Christ was God as he claimed too, however the “golden rule” does seem to be a predominate factor and even with atheism and historically. Its possible Christ bought a new meaning to this also from the OT. At any rate in some loose regard wouldn’t it be fair to say this belief arrives from religion and is somewhat worldwide or where did it arrive?

Are you wanting to claim the “golden rule” as a worldwide belief?
It is a universally followed rule, mostly intuitively, yes.
Most biologists posit that it’s an evolved trait for survival as social animals that we are.

It seems that there are so many of us humans that it’s ok, evolutionary speaking, for a few to go against this rule.

At best the documentation in the case of Jesus is accurately documented and consistently through history of the sequence of events since man has certainly remembered this guy Jesus for 2000 years. What is a better known book than the Bible? For someone who isn’t who he said there certainly exists tons of coexisting belief in which the Bible seems most significant along with the oral tradition.

Can we discard anything that comes… say… 100 years after the fact? All that becomes the work of believers.
In Egypt, the pantheon “survived” in people’s beliefs for some 4000 years, they built huge and elaborate monuments to them… I posit then that they had the true gods! - nonsense, huh?
The work of believers means only that they believe… it says nothing about the accuracy of the belief itself.

And I agree, at best, Jesus was who he’s been recorded to be.

Its possible Jesus is who he said he is too and may have known the guy which may or not be relevant what does history tell us about that?

How can we tell what Jesus said about himself?

Of course Jesus could be exactly who he said he was and as to magic I’m talking about the reality of a miracle which appears defined, maybe we should even remove its very idea from webster and secular thinking and philosophy or redefine the word as not to confuse educated peoples. We would be saying we can systematically explain all which can’t be explained in the universe outside our factual understanding of nature. But you admit earlier our nature may be subject to other than is assumed by us being a computer game?
Or assuming an explanation exists without qualification which I should believe why? Maybe we should say the unknown reality of the onset of our existence exists to which we are qualifying how this came into being thus us existing. Lots of theories and mysteries but no facts, but Jesus existed? So facts matter here also? So we should continue to seek the understanding of dark matter and energy and what do you call them as far as factual? I wouldn’t call that magic would you? Its an assumption to suggest this is even natural order as there is no reason to believe its not supernatural thus mystery i.e. miracle?

I know we all look alike, but that thing with the computer game was Bradski.
It is something I could have said myself. It is conceivable that we live in a sort of computer simulation, like Start Trek, the Next Generation’s Holodeck.

Everything else… if you want to present scientific discoveries as magical… then so be it. It doesn’t fall on my definition of magic.
[continued…]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

Me either no time, but, in the case of Christ we are discussing. Yet this historic belief has existed since Christ. Man hasn’t reached a more educated state of understanding in this regard to religion or Christ, as opposed to not believing as by your own words non-believers appear as the non historic paradigm of peoples. And admittedly no? What would accredit this to miracle and blessing?

Non-believers appear as the non historic paradigm…?
I’m sorry, I’m not following…
Can you say this in some other way?

I don’t know your more trusting than I, I would say we would have to believe the Church as it historically documented, why wouldn’t I believe them in other regards then?

The trouble is that most documentation (not to say all) stems from believers desiring to make others believe in it, too.
Too similar to any other religion for us to consider it any more trustworthy than any other.
I keep asking - why christianity and not any other?

 

[Spelf]

Do you happen to have/will you publish electronically a copy of this argument with citations and all in a non-thread format? The work you’ve done is excellent and I’d like to read through again without naysayers/share in the same manner

 

[anthony022071]

I see you used the uppercase G, there…
Am I to grant you the existence of the one true God™?
With that, Magic is possible, Magic has been used on this planet and hence anything is possible… even dead men rising.
If I grant you that, the conversation is over… check-mate in 1.

The power of God is not magic. Magic has to do with invoking the spiritual powers of nature which are actually demons - what St. Paul called the principalities, powers, world rulers of darkness, evil spirits in the heavens. (Ephesians 6, 120)

Superstition has to do with attributing powers to things that they do not possess.

But the true, living God who created all things does have the power to raise the dead.

Now, if I grant you a simpler god, the deist one, the one you arrive at through all those arguments, then we may have something.
I’d be willing to do this.
For the sake of discussion:
The creator god exists.
We know nothing more about him.
Carry on.

Why do you say that we know nothing more about God? Human reason tells us not only that there is a Creator who is God, but also that he is omnipotent and infinitely wise and good, that he cares for the world, sustaining it in its operations and giving existence, sustenance and life to living creatures. And what scripture and the Catholic Church teach about God is also knowledge. Knowledge is not limited to things that can be apprehended by reason or through scientific research or a naturalistic view of all historical information.

Wisdom 13 :

1
Foolish by nature were all who were in ignorance of God,
and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing the one who is,*
and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;a
2
Instead either fire, or wind, or the swift air,
or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water,
or the luminaries of heaven, the governors* of the world, they considered gods.b
3
Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods,
let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these;
for the original source of beauty fashioned them.c
4
Or if they were struck by their might and energy,
let them realize from these things how much more powerful is the one who made them.d
5
For from the greatness and the beauty of created things
their original author, by analogy, is seen. >

usccb.org/bible/wis/13:1#27013001

Romans 1, 19-20 :

For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.r As a result, they have no excuse; >

usccb.org/bible/romans/1

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PA.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PB.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PC.HTM

 

[Bradski]

But the true, living God who created all things does have the power to raise the dead.

Person 1 (eyewitness): There was this sick guy. Really depressed. Jesus spoke to him for a few minutes and you could see the change in the guy. He really perked up. Made him feel a lot better.
Person 2: My mate says that Jesus made this sick guy better.
Person 3: My brother says a friend of his saw Jesus just talk to someone who was really sick and cured him.
Person 4: There was this really sick person. I mean, really sick. And Jesus cured him just by talking to him!
Person 5: Apparently there was this bloke who was really ill. And I mean seriously. And he was cured just like that simply by Jesus saying a few words.
Person 6: This guy was all but dead, OK? A good mate of mine told me and he doesn’t ********. I mean this guy was seriously ill. No hope at all. And then…cured!
Person 7: I heard that this guy was at death’s door. I mean no hope at all. On his last legs. And Jesus just spoke a few words and he was completely cured.
Person 8: My neighbour told me that there was this guy who was, well, effectively dead. And all Jesus had to do was say a few words and…well, you can guess the rest.
Person 9: Jesus? Yeah, amazing stuff, eh? I heard from a good friend who said his mate was there and saw a dead person being brought back to life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Person 1 (eyewitness): Yada. Yada…

And it could have gone the other way, as well.

Person 1: (Eyewitness) Jesus? Yeah, amazing stuff, eh? I was at the house of a good friend named Lazarus who had been dead four days. Along comes this Jesus fellow, rolls away the stone and commands Lazarus to come out of the sepulcher. We all thought he was crazy. Some even laughed at Jesus, but lo and behold, out comes Lazarus holding his hands up against the sun 'cause it was blinding him. We were all stunned and there were about 500 of us standing around – the entire village. Unforgettable really, you have no idea! Dead four days! I mean starting to smell kind of dead!

Person 2: My neighbour told me that there was this guy who was, well, effectively dead. And all Jesus had to do was say a few words and…well, you can guess the rest.

Person 3: I heard that this guy was at death’s door. I mean no hope at all. On his last legs. And Jesus just spoke a few words and he was completely cured.

Person 4: This guy was all but dead, OK? A good mate of mine told me and he doesn’t ********. I mean this guy was seriously ill. No hope at all. And then…cured!

Person 5: Apparently there was this bloke who was really ill. And I mean seriously. And he was cured just like that simply by Jesus saying a few words.

Person 6: There was this really sick person. I mean, really sick. And Jesus cured him just by talking to him!

Person 7: My brother says a friend of his saw Jesus just talk to someone who was really sick and cured him.

Person 8: My mate says that Jesus made this sick guy better.

Person 9: There was this sick guy. Really depressed. Jesus spoke to him for a few minutes and you could see the change in the guy. He really perked up. Made him feel a lot better.

Bradski: Yeah, I can buy that, but this story being spread by Lazarus and his sisters and his four or five friends that Lazarus had been dead for four days, well that’s just nonsense!! What does he think we are credulous maroons?

Person 2: [head down, kicking a rock] Yeah, it would take a real nutjob to believe a story like that.