A Free One for the Apologists

[Jagella]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 23 by Mithrae]

But as I anticipated, this evidence just isn't good enough for some of our more sceptical friends

Thanks for posting that information!

Unfortunately, it falls far short of the evidence posited in my hypothetical scenario. The miracle allegedly happened to an unnamed person, but my scenario posits a miracle posited as happening to a person who is well-known around the world. No well-known, hardcore skeptics like James Randi investigated the supposed miracle in Lourdes and confirmed its authenticity. In my scenario any person who has sight can see the film footage of the miracle. This miracle at Lourdes is at best observable only by the people who knew the man including the doctors who are claimed to have examined him. Most of all at this point all we are presented with is a post from an unknown individual in an internet forum claiming the miracle while my scenario posits media coverage by well-known news agencies.

In any event this case is intriguing. I'd need to investigate it further to determine if the miracle claim is credible.

The fellow's name was Jean-Pierre Bely Did you even glance at the thread with "full details" that I linked to, or wonder how I'd know the date of the cure if the fellow was anonymous? James Randi has written about the Lourdes phenomenon - again as referenced in that thread - but the only specific criticism I saw was alternative speculation about one out of the six 'confirmed' miracles since 1960, upon which a vague generalization is made about all others (as quoted by Wikipedia). And do you really think that CNN and Fox have more credibility than the two peer-reviewed scientific journals in which I found articles published about the Lourdes phenomenon?

Being able to watch video of an event is only inherently persuasive if you're convinced that Iron Man and Hulk recently saved us from invading aliens. If not, videos' value depends solely and entirely on the reliability of the source (and I suppose video editing skills, though these days I'd guess they're good enough that well-faked imagery cannot be reliably detected in most cases, least of all by amateur viewers).

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 31 by Mithrae]

The fellow's name was Jean-Pierre Bely.

Thanks, but this person is not well-known. I never heard of him (or her?) before. Is he a person we can trust to be truthful?

Did you even glance at the thread with "full details" that I linked to, or wonder how I'd know the date of the cure if the fellow was anonymous?

I did not read what you linked to. I was in a hurry. If I had read it, then all I could say is that I read a post written by a person I don't know in an internet forum. Compare that to seeing film footage from the major news agencies. I hope you can understand the superiority of the evidence in my scenario over the evidence being offered for the Lourdes miracle.

And do you really think that CNN and Fox have more credibility than the two peer-reviewed scientific journals in which I found articles published about the Lourdes phenomenon?

I'd probably be more likely to believe what the journals have to say, but I do not have those journal articles. I only have your word that those articles exist.

...videos' value depends solely and entirely on the reliability of the source (and I suppose video editing skills, though these days I'd guess they're good enough that well-faked imagery cannot be reliably detected in most cases, least of all by amateur viewers).

It's popular nowadays to be skeptical about the news agencies. Much of that skepticism has a political basis. The news agencies dig up he dirt, and the politicians deny it as "fake news." To deny what the agencies report, while justifiable in some cases, is quite misplaced in my opinion. It would require a conspiracy for all the news agencies to concoct fables. Such a conspiracy is highly unlikely.

Finally, I did a quick search at WebMd.com, and found no cures for MS. Another source has this to say: "Physical therapy and exercise can play an important part in the recovery and in curing of multiple sclerosis." It appears to me that these peer-reviewed journal articles you mention have not made their findings get into mainstream medicine. The second source I posted does say that "curing" of MS is possible with treatment. This Jean-Pierre Bely may have recovered from treatment, and no miracle is necessary.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]


The events in Mark and Matthew are based on the Old Testament, directly borrowing its language:

The Donkey(s) - Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9.

Mark has Jesus sit on a young donkey that he had his disciples fetch for him (Mark 11.1-10).

Matthew changes the story so the disciples instead fetch TWO donkeys, not only the young donkey of Mark but also his mother. Jesus rides into Jerusalem on both donkeys at the same time (Matthew 21.1-9). Matthew wanted the story to better match the literal reading of Zechariah 9.9. Matthew even actually quotes part of Zech. 9.9.

The Sermon on the Mount - The Sermon of the Mount relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially, and in key places on other texts. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isa. 50.6-9.

The clearing of the temple - The cleansing of the temple as a fictional scene has its primary inspiration from an ancient faulty translation of Zech. 14.21 which changed 'Canaanites' to 'traders'.

When Jesus clears the temple he quotes Jer. 7.11 (in Mk 11.17). Jeremiah and Jesus both enter the temple (Jer. 7.1-2; Mk 11.15), make the same accusation against the corruption of the temple cult (Jeremiah quoting a revelation from the Lord, Jesus quoting Jeremiah), and predict the destruction of the temple (Jer. 7.12-14; Mk 14.57-58; 15.29).

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 33 by alwayson]

While your post is well written and scholarly, I'm not sure how it relates to the topic. Could you explain what it has to do with "good evidence" for miracles versus the probability that the event is true?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 22 by AdHoc]

So in this hypothetical did the event actually happen?

Or is it fake news?

You should come to your own conclusion. If you have the kind of solid evidence that I posited in the OP, might you deem the apparent miracle to be a historical event? Or would you like Bart Ehrman say that it cannot be historical because you say any miracle is the least probable event?

Because seeing something on tv is not particularly the best evidence for the truth of a matter. As evidenced by Faux news and CNN themselves.

Do you know of any instance in which a major news agency fabricated an event out of whole cloth and did so with the cooperation of another news agency that it was very much at odds with?

Are you suggesting that if two liars that are usually at odds with each other report the same thing they should be trusted?

...No thanks.

You didnt really answer my question I think in your hypothetical Trump didnt levitate and the report was fabricated. If I'm wrong please let me know.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 34 by Jagella]

The Gospels are fiction since they are based on the Old Testament.

It has nothing to do with miracles.

[marco]

You can say these things are "fair to say" but it would be extremely presumptuous. ...........

I am not claiming it is false, I am simply claiming to highly doubt it.

However, if I were interested, enough to be on a site debating the issue day in and day out, I would never one time refer to the probabilities, because I understand that the probabilities have no bearing at all upon what the truth may be, therefore there is no need in referring to them.

This cryptic comment was an answer to my statement: "Meanwhile, back on Earth, it is fair to say that when we are discussing things regarded as miracles two millennia ago we can reasonably say they probably did not occur. "

I cannot see the remotest presumption in what I said. You drift into saying almost the same thing but the final paragraph I have quoted of yours is quite beyond me to follow. I can only guess that the word "probably" has set you off on a discourse about the use of probabilities in things like chicken-rearing or cosmetic surgery. I'm afraid you lost me.

[Realworldjack]

Allow me to attempt to explain where you are in error here. When it comes to the Resurrection, we do not have, "written stories." Rather, what we have is, "written letters" between different parties, and there is a tremendous difference!

The difference is, the evidence is clear, that these men were not attempting simply to write stories, but were rather simply living their life, and these letters are the by product of living their life.

Lets take the author of Luke, and Acts, for example. It is clear that the author of both of these letters were one and the same. These letters were addressed to someone by the name of Theophilus.

This author had no intention of writing "stories" because he had no idea that anyone else would ever read his letter, and he certainly did not have any idea about what we now call the Bible, and that his letters to Theophilus would one day end up in this Bible.

He was simply writing a letter to a friend, explaining to him the things that he had seen and witnessed, because although the author never mentions himself, he does begin to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events, indicating that he was there to witness the events.

That's not entirely accurate. Acts has a pretty clear literary structure, in which Jesus' command (Acts 1:8) is fulfilled to preach the gospel in Jerusalem (chapters 1-7), in all Judea and Samaria (chapters 8-12; as far as Damascus and Caesaria, including the conversions of an Ethiopian/Hamite in 8, a Jew/Shemite in 9 and a Roman/Japhethite in 10) and then "to the ends of the earth" with Paul's missionary journeys from chapter 13 onwards. That is part of the reason why Paul, as possibly the most active early missionary, features so prominently in the book even though he was a minor figure in the actual church 'hierarchy,' and why it ends with Paul still preaching the gospel under house arrest in Rome rather than telling of his death. Luke may have been a companion of Paul, but there's strong evidence that his books were written with some knowledge of the works of Josephus (or at least Jewish War, written c. 76CE; the case for his knowledge of Antiquities is considerably more tenuous despite Carrier's efforts), so he surely knew how Paul's story ended - it just didn't fit the structure and tone of the book.

Similarly, the gospel of Luke records events which the author clearly states he not been a witness of (1:2), but had "carefully investigated everything from the beginning." He was not simply conveying personal experience, but trying to make a persuasive case for what he believed. Theophilus (meaning loved by God or loving God) may not have been a specific person at all, simply an address to believers or potential converts in general; there's certainly nothing in the opening remarks of either work to suggest any kind of personal relationship between Luke and 'Theophilus,' and no closing remarks to either 'letter' at all.

John was probably written by the disciple, but it's clearly more of a theological tract than historical record. The most bare-bones gospel is Mark, probably by Peter's interpreter: In its original form it may not have even described any post-resurrection appearances by Jesus at all - it doesn't get any more spartan than that! But even Mark may well have drawn on earlier written sources (eg. a 'passion narrative' probably circulated in Judea before 44CE) and shows evidence of intending a particular thematic structure in at least some places.

That's not entirely accurate. Acts has a pretty clear literary structure, in which Jesus' command (Acts 1:8) is fulfilled to preach the gospel in Jerusalem (chapters 1-7), in all Judea and Samaria (chapters 8-12; as far as Damascus and Caesaria, including the conversions of an Ethiopian/Hamite in 8, a Jew/Shemite in 9 and a Roman/Japhethite in 10) and then "to the ends of the earth" with Paul's missionary journeys from chapter 13 onwards.

GOOD GRIEF! So then, are you suggesting that if I were to write a letter addressed to a certain individual, and tell of accounts of how, George Washington may have commanded his troops, then this would no longer be considered a letter, but rather, literature?

Listen, the author of Luke, and the Acts, clearly identifies his audience. Next, he goes on to give the reason that he is writing the letter, and then goes on to give the way in which he received the information.

I really do not understand? Simply because the author may have used eloquence of speech, does not mean this was not a letter, and there is overwhelming evidence that it was indeed a letter, as we will eventually see.

That is part of the reason why Paul, as possibly the most active early missionary, features so prominently in the book even though he was a minor figure in the actual church 'hierarchy,' and why it ends with Paul still preaching the gospel under house arrest in Rome rather than telling of his death.

Oh really? Well, it could not possibly be the fact that the reason the other Apostles were not mentioned very much at all, after the story of Paul's missionary journeys begins, is because the author would have been along with Paul on these journeys, and could not possibly report on what the other Apostles were doing in Jerusalem, since the author would not have been in Jerusalem, and would have had no idea what the other Apostles were doing?

In fact, there is very strong evidence inside the letter that strongly suggest, the author was in fact with Paul. You see, although the author never refers to himself, he does in fact begin to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events, which strongly suggest that he is along with Paul, away from Jerusalem, and is there to actually witness the events he records.

Also notice, once the journeys of Paul begins, and the author begins to use the words, "we", and "us", the other Apostles are never mentioned again, until, or unless, Paul comes back in contact with them again, which would make perfect sense. In other words, the author could not possibly report on what the other Apostles are doing, since he is with Paul, but when Paul, comes back in contact with them, and the author is with Paul, it is only then that the author mentions the other Apostles.

I do believe that I am making a pretty strong case here, but we are not finished.

You mention the fact that the letter, (not the book, because it is not a book), ends with Paul being under house arrest, and you are right. So now let us turn our attention to one of the letters attributed to Paul, which would be 2 Timothy.

In this letter, Paul is clearly under arrest, which certainly backs up the claim by the author of Acts. Paul goes on to tell Timothy, "only Luke is with me."

WOW! Now lets think about this! The author of Acts, continues to use the words, "we", and "us" all the way, and up to the point where Paul is on his journey to stand trial in Rome. He ends with Paul under arrest, and Paul, not only confirms he is indeed under arrest, he also just so happens to confirm that the one who is attributed with writing the letter to Theophilous, is the only one with him. Amazing, isn't it? Lets continue to think about this.

If the author of Luke, and Acts, was indeed along with Paul, and continued with him, as Paul suggests, all the way until Paul is under arrest, and the author, (and I think it is safe to say it was indeed Luke now) writes these letters, with the two years he now has, in other words he writes these letters with the time he has now that Paul is stationary, and no longer on his journeys, then it would make perfect sense that he would end the letter, with Paul being under arrest, since that would be the point they were at when he ended the letter.

All the above makes perfect sense, and I did not have to listen to anyone else, nor did I have to refer to the so called experts, because the evidence is right there in front of you.

Luke may have been a companion of Paul,

To simply say "he MAY have been" is certainly an understatement and flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence in the letters, of Paul, and Luke themselves, which would have been next to impossible to fabricate.

but there's strong evidence that his books were written with some knowledge of the works of Josephus

You call this "strong evidence?" It is all based upon assumptions, and completely ignores the facts I have pointed out straight from the letters themselves. In other words, it completely ignores the letters themselves, and the evidence contained, and simply throws out assumptions, that can never be demonstrated.

You know like placing the date of the writing to be very late, when the letter itself suggests very strongly that it was written while Paul was under arrest. Couple this with the fact that the letter that Paul wrote to Timothy, which mentions Luke, would have certainly been written in this two year time frame where Paul was under arrest.

Now of course the experts question if Paul was the author of this letter to Timothy, but why do you suppose they do such a thing? Well, it is because they realize that it is very strong evidence, therefore they must, and have to cast doubt, and the reasons they use in order to cast doubt is very weak, and on very shaky ground.

so he surely knew how Paul's story ended - it just didn't fit the structure and tone of the book.

Two points here. First, if Luke ended the letter at the point where they were at the time, in other words, he intended to do exactly what he said which was to "write an orderly account" to Theophilus, and wanted to get these letters to him, then Paul would still be alive at the time, which would mean that the author would have had no way in which to record how Paul's story would have ended.

Next, how would we even know if the Paul may have in fact, outlived the author? You see, you seem to be going on the assumption that these letters must have been written far after the facts, when the evidence surely suggests that they were written while Paul was under arrest.

In fact, more than likely Luke wrote the first letter, and sent it on it's way, while he sat down, and continued on the second. That is certainly the evidence, but you go right ahead and continue to listen to the assumptions of the scholars.

Similarly, the gospel of Luke records events which the author clearly states he not been a witness of (1:2), but had "carefully investigated everything from the beginning."

Exactly! Which is an honest statement, now isn't it? In other words, if the author simply intended to write some sort of story, in hopes there would be those one day that may believe it, then he would have left this little, "tidbit" out, now wouldn't he?

But lets keep in mind that the author does not have folks like you, and me in mind, some 2000 years later, but rather only has his audience at the time in mind, and the author is banking on the fact that his audience knows, and trust him very well, and he tells his audience these things, assuring him that he can trust what is being said, because he knows that if Luke claims to have "carefully investigated" then he can rest assure that it was indeed.

This tends to lend credence to the letters, since you, and I cannot be so sure of how carefully the author investigated, but he is not concerned with us, he is simply concerned with one that he knows does, and has every reason to do so. If he were writing to a wider audience, it may be wise to leave this sort of thing out, since no one else would be able to have such confidence.

He was not simply conveying personal experience, but trying to make a persuasive case for what he believed.

Could you please explain why you go outside what the actual letter claims? Who was he attempting to make this "persuasive case" too? Theophilus, certainly seems to have already been a believer, and the author claims to be giving a detailed account of events, so that Theophilus, can have, "confidence in the things he had been taught."

So the author is not in any way attempting to persuade his audience to become a believer, but rather seems to be attempting to give him confidence in the things he already believes.

The author admits to not witnessing everything he writes, but places himself, with his reputation with his audience, knowing that they will surely have confidence in the things he writes since they know him so well. The author never claims to have witnessed any of these things, but in the second letter, he begins to naturally use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events he records, which is natural evidence that he did indeed witness much at the end. Couple this with the letters of Paul, and there is even stronger evidence that this author did in fact witness such events.

Theophilus (meaning loved by God or loving God) may not have been a specific person at all, simply an address to believers or potential converts in general

Yes, I have heard this argument before, and there are a several problems with it.

First, it would all have to be based upon assumptions. There are many names that have meaning, like the Bible claims Peter means rock. So then, are we simply going to assume that if someone addresses a letter to a Peter, that it could in fact be a rock. Of course not! But for some reason, because it is in the Bible we must question whether this was a personal letter, or not, since the name of the one addressed has a meaning.

Next, it is not simply addressed to Theophilus, but rather, "most excellent Theophilus" which certainly suggests an individual.

Third, even if this were the case, it does not negate the fact that this is a letter, addressed to a particular audience, just like the letters of Paul. With this being the case, I see no point at all.

Then, your reference to "potential converts" is out of the question since the author specifically says, "that YOU (singular) may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." Therefore, it is clear the author has one audience in mind, and it is those who have been "instructed."

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 35 by AdHoc]

Are you suggesting that if two liars that are usually at odds with each other report the same thing they should be trusted?

If you want an answer to your question, then you should answer mine: Do you know of any instance in which a major news agency fabricated an event out of whole cloth and did so with the cooperation of another news agency that it was very much at odds with?

To answer your question I would need to know what you mean by "liars." Assuming you mean that news agencies sometimes get it wrong perhaps deliberately, I'd still suggest that yes, two or more agencies reporting the same story can be trusted. Even liars probably tell the truth most of the time. Two liars are unlikely to collude to fabricate a story if they are enemies. Enemies don't normally cooperate.

You didnt really answer my question I think in your hypothetical Trump didnt levitate and the report was fabricated. If I'm wrong please let me know.

OK, if you insist that I tell you if Trump's levitation really happened in my hypothetical scenario, then let's imagine that he did levitate.

It doesn't matter, though. What I asked in the OP is what do you conclude and how do you arrive at that conclusion. Do you accept the evidence presented that Trump levitated, and that the event is historical? Or do you reject the evidence and like Bart Ehrman say that a miracle is too improbable to be accepted as a historical event?

[Iseerce]

What is a "miracle?" Please define this term. Otherwise, arguments from ignorance are steadily approaching.

If you're going to posit any kind of explanation, you have to be prepared to demonstrate, not only sufficiency, but necessity as well. Causality is two-pronged, and both must be demonstrated before you can establish a causal link between the event and your explanation of a "miracle."

How do we investigate such supernatural claims as this? By what mechanism are we guided, as we explore this realm, how do we investigate?