There are many things which can not be proven to be true. This is especially true in regards to history. So yes it just you. I have no trouble accepting things like the Gettysburg address, WW2, Columbus discovering America and a whole bunch of other things from the past, all of which can be denied if you simply assume a position of disbelief before examining evidence for or against as well as sources, intentions, ulterior motives, outside source material and other things which should be weighed before making a decision.
I see. So if I believe that Lincoln made a speech decreeing all slaves free, the same logic can be used to justify a belief that thousands of years ago, a man named Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven?
You see nothing logically wrong with this summation?
No. I am pointing out that the other extreme is just as unjustified. Since no one in modern times provides an obvious miracle, they must all be lies is just as presumptuous. If you start with an assumption then you will hunt for evidence (or lack of it). The only way to true scholarship is to examine what does not exist. Non-theists argue many time from a position of silence just like you are doing now. However your position of silence (miracles not happening today and lack of evidence) is not entirely solid. There are non-christian sources that attest to Jesus miracles which you continue to ignore. You don't even address them after I have asked you to several times so your position is lacking in two areas while mine is hurting only in one.
My position hurts because no one recently has seen a miracles documented on CNN. However, this really isn't so bad considering that miracles are claimed in regions not privy to cameras, the fact that it was the Son of God and his direct followers who performed miracles so you can't really even establish a precedence that miracles SHOULD appear today and finally the fact that there are extra-biblical attestations to Jesus actions.
Your position hurts because your argument of lack of evidence isn't solid because Jesus contemporary enemies mention his actions so there is evidence. This negates your position from the start. Your position is also hurting because it is an argument from silence (or not so much) which is a weak position to begin with.
Historians accept the Gettysburg Address, WW2, and Columbus because they are historically founded. We have multiple (even thousands) of reliable first hand accounts, undeniable archeological evidence, and in the case of the Gettysburg Address, the original manuscript.
You obviously didn't take part in my Gettysburg thread. I have done considerably more research since then and found even more reason to doubt a valid historical event from less than 200 years ago. And your presumption of the original being possessed isn't true even from the scholars on the subject. Not only is the very first copy thought to be lost, but even if it is one of the two we possess, no one knows which one it is.
See what happens when you assume? Please feel free to participate in Gettysburg if you don't believe me. It shows how easy it is to twist a real historical event into fiction, as process that non-theists have mastered.
On the other hand, no credible historian will attest to the fantastical happenings described in the Bible. Many do not even think that Jesus' very existence is historically founded. We don't know where this book came from. We don't know when it was written. We don't know who wrote it. We don't know if the people claiming to have written it ever even existed. We don't know how many times it has been manipulated and altered over the years, and in what way.
This is the second time you have questioned Jesus very existence. Therefore I think it fair to assume this is your stance since you never answered me on this point. If this is in fact your position then you are not in very good company. The evidence for a person of Jesus is well above anything demanded by historians. As for credible historians acknowledging Jesus actions, I assume you are disregarding all biblical historians simply because they disagree with you rather than their credentials? Sounds like it in which case my entire point has been proven.
And yet, you claim that we should accept it as historical knowledge, along with proven events such as the Civil War and Columbus' voyage?
Feel free to join me on Gettysburg. I have done even more research since I last posted there.
This is the fundamental downfall of the atheist regarding miracles. They deny the possibility based on their preconceptions. Then when a source supporting said events is put forth, they need to deny it because of their preconceptions.
No. I deny such a source because it is wholly ridiculous, baseless, unfounded, incoherent, and inconsistent with established historical fact.
ridiculous, is an opinion which you are free to have. Baseless is hard to argue since there are no contradictions with known history. It is at the very least plausible. Unfounded is again an opinion as is incoherent. Inconsistent with history is flat out incorrect.
So I challenge you. Take a section of the stories of Jesus which has been disproven by the tools of history. Literature, archeology, etc. The challenge is there, in fact I am going to start a thread on it.
I wonder- do you give every other book the same undying blind faith that you give the Bible? If I claimed to have ridden my tricycle to the moon on my 5th birthday, would you question my truthfullness?
This would all depend on outside sources, scientific factors, the stability of your documentation, etc. Can you provide anything supporting your claim or those of other ancient books?
Incidentally, your thoughts here follow EXACTLY what my faith journey went. I examined the literature of 7 major religions. I examined the archeology supporting them. I found the NT to be well supported. Islam's literature for example is find and dandy except that it all is traced back to 1 person who was known for expounding and exaggeration. The NT is from at least 5 sources and probably many more. There are many examples of this.
Jesus can make whatever inane claims he wants. Until he demonstrates the accuracy of those claims, no one can logically accept him as their personal savior.
Exactly. This is why he did.
Well, none exists, of course.
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing that your demand of our proving miracles beyond any shadow of a doubt is illogical.
Demanding that you prove
anything beyond a shadow of a doubt is illogical. There is nothing of which we can be certain, but a good number of things of which we can be pretty sure.
Show me a man walking on water (or more significantly, a god capable of impowering such a feat), and I can be
pretty sure that miracles do indeed exist.
Good thing I'm not here to convince you personally. If direct witness of an event is the only method you believe history by, then I can see right away you trust the non-theist dogma of "extraordinary event require extra ordinary proof". In other words, deny anything you disbelieve in the beginning unless someone can offer something which obviously is impossible, (as you just admitted).
However, pointing to an unreliable religious text that merely claims that such things took place is not going to do it for me.
How would you examine history? Or is all of history unbelievable unless you currently accept it? Sounds a little close minded to me.
Forget the Bible. Either show me God, or walk to Japan. Take your pick.
I love this quote. In fact I am going to reference it in the future. It shows the closeminded nature of proud non-theists. Of course
you realize it assumes you already have full knowledge of everything right?
Granted. However there are other sources of information on God. In order to dismiss God outright, the witness accounts of Jesus (both his followers and enemies) would need to be shown to contain massive errors.
I don't need to do ANYTHING to dismiss God outright.
''
Apparently.
YOU need to do quite a bit to prove him.
I thought you just said that absolute proof was impossible?
Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Or are you simply taking the position that I am required to prove my case beyond any doubt but no one else should be held to such a ridiculous standard?
Unless I am mistaken, the biblical contradictions thread failed to present a single contradiction which endangered any major area of Christian beliefs.
"Christian beliefs"? Exactly what beliefs are those? Catholic beliefs? Orthodox beliefs? Baptist? Later Day Saints?
Until Christians can decide just what Christ taught, we can hardly label any belief as being "Christian".
Red Herring. However, I will clarify. Non-denominational protestant beliefs in general. Please provide an example.
I don't need to demonstrate a contradiction between Jesus' teachings. Christians do that themselves.
Example.
No I do not think that there should be a higher demand placed on evidence of religion. I think it should fall under the exact same rules as other historical events.
Jim Bob claims that yesterday, he read a book.
Billy Joe claims to have been abducted by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, whisked away 10,000 galaxies, and anally probed by a pink winged unicorn wearing a ski mask.
I write a testimony for each person attesting to their feats. Which testimony do you think will hold up in a court of law? Which would be more likely to make it's way into a history textbook?
Ok we can examine this based on the traditional rules of historical analysis. How many extra sources does he have? Is there any archeology supporting this? Can his whereabouts be attested to by another method? Do the major players in this series of events have credible historicity? Just based on these we can throw out much of what he put forth, but the bible is still solid.
If the non-theist must administer higher standards to exclude evidence presented by Theists then I think your demands actually lend us a great complement and high credibility. We require our own level of examination to be disproved. Outstanding!!
It's not so much that you have to present a higher standard of proof. You just happen to have more facets of the issue to prove.
When Jim Bob claims to have read a book, a reliable written testimony is all that is needed, because it has all ready been established that it is indeed possible for a person to read a book.
Billy Joe, on the other hand, has a bit more on his plate. Not only must he provide a witness, he must also:
(1) Prove the existence of this "Flying Spaghetti Monster"
(2) Prove that there is technology available to allow for intergalactical travel.
(3) Prove the existence of flying pink unicorns, ect
Ok what about a person not believing in his claims attesting not only to the existence of all the major players but also to several of the events, writing on those very events and explaining them away by another method. How about we require at least as many extra sources as the bible possess? There is archeology supporting the bibles characters. Surely he can support his claims with the skeletons of the unicorns?
The same problem exists with Jesus. It has not been proven that walking on water is possible. The God that brought about this event has never been proven to exist. If Historians allowed for "equal treatment" of all claims, just think of the crap our textbooks would be littered with.
I just offered several places where the normal analysis of history works both in favor of the bible and against his theory.
There were no scientific "experts" in Jesus' time, of course. Even more reason to be skeptical of those who claim to have seen his miracles (if any such people actually exist).
You were the one who wrote this
I think that this particular point of his really rings true, because we know that even most experts in Jesus' time did not believe in his miracles (besides the ones who actually saw them... or so the Bible says).
Are you not contradiction yourself here? Please explain.
In the first quote, I claimed that there were "experts" during Jesus' time.
In the second, I denied the existence of any such experts.
However, this is not a contradiction. How? Because it is a miracle; I have made two statements that explicitly defy the principles of the English language, yet these statements remain inerrant. Why? Because I said so.
Based on your standards of historical inquiry, you have no choice but to accept this.
My standards of history would require that at least one scholar contemporary to you and I agree with you that this is a miracles and not simply a mixup in the use of grammar.
Besides this you would need at least 4 other persons on either side to agree with your attestation of this not being a problem. In addition to this those four persons should have the intention of being truthful. Also, we would need to examine the standards of the time (today). Do the standards of today's literature agree with your view or do they contest it?
So feel free to back up your statement.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
