How would your account be different?

[Inigo Montoya]

I've been tossing around the question as to why it is we believe written accounts of officers or soldiers in past wars, or why we believe the stories of famous men and women throughout history prior to the advent of cameras and film.


For the sake of argument, I'd ask you -- IF you were witness to the life and death of Jesus in the first century, and we assume the miracles and resurrection are true, how do YOU record your accounting of it in such a way it is believed in future generations?

Is this possible? Do we believe the events of the War of 1812 took place the way they did because there's no mention of supernatural occurrences?

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

[Inigo Montoya]

I would be genuinely curious what a non contradictory and unambiguous account from Jesus might sound like, and perhaps if even THAT would be enough.


To go back to the original question, Im beginning to think there isnt ANY manner of writing done by Jesus or an eyewitness that would persuade a skeptic 2000 years later.

Just for giggles, what if his miracles had been caught on tape?

Would they be dissected as no more than illusions from an early David Blaine or Copperfield?

In light of the responses so far, and my own toying with this notion, im swaying heavily toward the following:

For the non-christian and/or atheist, AND given the gospel narrative IS accurate for the sake of this discussion, there is NO means by which it could have been recorded that would persuade them of its validity.

[Inigo Montoya]

Also,

To Divine and Jax and especially McCulloch,

I enjoyed your posts very much. Divine your summary about Jesus is awfully close to one I've had for years now.

[Jax Agnesson]

In light of the responses so far, and my own toying with this notion, im swaying heavily toward the following:

For the non-christian and/or atheist, AND given the gospel narrative IS accurate for the sake of this discussion, there is NO means by which it could have been recorded that would persuade them of its validity.

We cannot ignore the fact that the intervening 2000 years have gone by one day at a time.
If, in the days immediately following the alleged events, there had been evidence strong enough to convince the earliest skeptics, that evidence would have been preserved as something precious beyond jewels. Instead, what we have got is reports of small bands of people who believed something that everyone else thought preposterous.
3 centuries after the alleged events, the sect has grown considerably, and there comes to the ears of an Emperor under pressure a brilliant idea; a god who sees everything, makes laws, rewards the righteous and punishes transgressors.
'Now why didn't we think of that?' the Roman Emperor muses; and thenceforth he sends out missionaries with every legion.
Today wherever Roman, Muslim, Conquistadore, British, Ottoman or any other Empire has trampled, we find states promoting obedience to the God of Doing-As-You're-Told.
Hmmm. Wonder why that is?

[Inigo Montoya]

Another great response, Jax.

I do not accept any texts that claim absolute knowledge of gods or invisible realms, Ive only just recently been in brain vapor-lock trying to imagine how, if it WERE true, I'd ever allow myself to be convinced given the testimony at the time.

Im afraid, and this is selfish, I require a god to take a little one on one time with me personally to show me it exists.

In a chat room the other night I was accused of being a person who couldn't ''see'' on account of how my eyes hadn't been opened by God. Which made me of course ask why he hadn't bothered to open them, and if perhaps he wasn't interested in my acceptance after all.

I was then led to believe I'd never be capable of understanding the supernatural whilst only wielding a naturalistic toolbox.

This god of you Christians has some really strange rules of engagement, says I.

[Mithrae]

If someone had seen the miracles, wonders and modest following, do you think they would not be in the society of believers yet still willing to write about them?

Matthew 21:9-11
Luke 6:17-18

Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and beyond the Jordan, and the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, a great number of people heard of all that He was doing and came to Him. And He told His disciples that a boat should stand ready for Him because of the crowd, so that they would not crowd Him; for He had healed many, with the result that all those who had afflictions pressed around Him in order to touch Him. Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God!� And He earnestly warned them not to tell who He was.

And if someone says incredulously "You haven't heard of Michael Jackson? Everyone has heard of Michael Jackson!" you would conclude they believe that every person on earth has heard of him? Most or all of Jesus' disciples were said to be relative nobodies unused to any degree of fame - the likes of provincial tax collectors, extremists and fishermen - and hyperbole is a well-known method of expression which even most conservative Christians agree is used in the gospels (eg. Satan showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world). A few hundred people from various regions could force a man into a boat The largest crowd ever claimed by the gospels was less than 1% of the population of Judea and Galilee, which is a significant number but not particularly exceptional.

I wonder if any 'future sceptics' would consider such accounts genuine in any case, when there's a substantial number who argue against the authenticity of Josephus' neutral reference to James

Really! I do not know of any skeptic who argues against the historical existence of James, who seems to have taken over the leadership of the Christian movement after the death of Jesus, just as Jesus took over the leadership after the death of John the Baptist.

or even Tacitus' comments on Nero's persecution?

Tacitus' comments are historical evidence that there existed a small body of Christian believers in the mid first century.

I said that the authenticity of the passages is disputed, particularly (and sometimes quite vehemently) the Josephus one, not the historicity of the events - though of course many people do indeed argue that there was no historical Jesus and thus no brother of Jesus.

Anything about miracles would certainly be Christian forgery!

Historians routinely ignore claims of miracles whether from Marco Polo, about Alexander the Great, Constantine or Jesus. They are somewhat evenhanded about this. Or at least they should be. Jesus sometimes gets a free pass.

Sometimes - and sometimes gets a double dose of scepticism. But it seems you'd agree that even if the miracles and so on really had occurred, there is no way it could have been recorded which would persuade modern sceptics?

[McCulloch]

And if someone says incredulously "You haven't heard of Michael Jackson? Everyone has heard of Michael Jackson!" you would conclude they believe that every person on earth has heard of him? Most or all of Jesus' disciples were said to be relative nobodies unused to any degree of fame - the likes of provincial tax collectors, extremists and fishermen - and hyperbole is a well-known method of expression which even most conservative Christians agree is used in the gospels (eg. Satan showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world). A few hundred people from various regions could force a man into a boat The largest crowd ever claimed by the gospels was less than 1% of the population of Judea and Galilee, which is a significant number but not particularly exceptional.

I am willing to believe that most of the New Testament boasting about Jesus is gross hyperbole. Healing, raising the dead, ascending into heaven, walking on water, calming the storm, casting out demons, visited by magi ...

I said that the authenticity of the passages is disputed, particularly (and sometimes quite vehemently) the Josephus one, not the historicity of the events - though of course many people do indeed argue that there was no historical Jesus and thus no brother of Jesus.

Actually, there is more historical credence for James than Jesus. I have read a few of those who deny the historical Jesus but not James. Kind of like accepting Julius Caesar but not Romulus and Remus. Myself, I'm somewhat agnostic. I think that probably Jesus did exist, but not even close to the exaggerated depictions of the Gospels.

Historians routinely ignore claims of miracles whether from Marco Polo, about Alexander the Great, Constantine or Jesus. They are somewhat evenhanded about this. Or at least they should be. Jesus sometimes gets a free pass.

Sometimes - and sometimes gets a double dose of scepticism. But it seems you'd agree that even if the miracles and so on really had occurred, there is no way it could have been recorded which would persuade modern sceptics?

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish.

This is the acid test. Modern or ancient, the only testimony sufficient to establish a miracle is one where there can be no possible other explanation.

[dbohm]

I would tell Jesus to teleport me in the future and back so I could grab a bunch of cameras and start recording from start to finish. Then once I had done all this I would bury the tapes only to be discovered in the future verifying the accuracy of the soon to be written New Testament testimony.

Oh no I just realised there would be some crucial flaws to this In about 1100AD some of the tapes were uncovered by a peasant boy digging a trench. He thought they looked great, showed his friends in the village and they smashed them to smithereens playing knights. Bummer.

Luckily a few of them were left in tack and got discovered in 2100AD by a world renowned Israeli archaeologist. He wondered why some trash from the early 2000s was lying right next to a shovel dating around 1000AD. Just for momento sake he kept some of them in his office at Tel Aviv University. They collected dust on top of his office bookshelves. 20 years later he died. His kids were collecting all his stuff as part of his estate. One of them noticed the dvds. His dad never talked to him about them. Just out of curiosity he called one of his friends who was crazy about antique computers and dvd players. He watched it. There I was telling the story of how I had travelled in the future to get the cameras and showed video of Jesus' ministry and miracles. He wasn't sure what to believe. His dad had become a messianic Jew much to the chagrin of the rest of the family and much to the stir of the archaeology department. As he got older he became noticeably senile and eccentric. He also had a few Christian friends none of the rest of the family liked.

Would he toss it in the bin? He puzzled over it for a while. But out of respect to his father he got one of his friends in the archaeology department to carbon date it. Unbelievable it came out as over 2000 years old! There must be some error. So they tested it again and again. Same result! He decided to go to the press. This was going to be big news - actual proof of Jesus' life and miracles. And it was! It was all over the tv news and internet. Yet most people believed it was just a hoax - especially archaeology experts who at first paid no attention to it and then when pressed by reporters simply said that sometimes radio carbon dating throws up anomalies. As one expert said

Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.
A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old.

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radi ... ating.html

Well it did get a few Christian apologist web warriors going for a few months But the consensus of opinion is that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax found in the office of a deceased eccentric academic.

So much for that idea.

[scourge99]

For the sake of argument, I'd ask you -- IF you were witness to the life and death of Jesus in the first century, and we assume the miracles and resurrection are true, how do YOU record your accounting of it in such a way it is believed in future generations?

Rather than it being jesus, what if you and I witnessed leprechauns who performed magic? I think using such an analogous example prevents Christians from special pleading.

So if i witnessed leprechauns then the best I could do is record the events exactly as i witnessed them. But I'd hardly expect that to convince others in my own time, let alone thousands of years from now.

Is this possible?

Not without substantial corroborating evidence because evidence can't be mistaken, deceived, deluded, or conniving. However, we know humans can. This is why testimony alone isn't enough to convict someone in court.

Do we believe the events of the War of 1812 took place the way they did because there's no mention of supernatural occurrences?

That's one if many reasons. Other reasons are that there is evidence and multiple independent accounts of the events.

[charles_hamm]

I would be genuinely curious what a non contradictory and unambiguous account from Jesus might sound like, and perhaps if even THAT would be enough.


To go back to the original question, Im beginning to think there isnt ANY manner of writing done by Jesus or an eyewitness that would persuade a skeptic 2000 years later.

Just for giggles, what if his miracles had been caught on tape?

Would they be dissected as no more than illusions from an early David Blaine or Copperfield?

In light of the responses so far, and my own toying with this notion, im swaying heavily toward the following:

For the non-christian and/or atheist, AND given the gospel narrative IS accurate for the sake of this discussion, there is NO means by which it could have been recorded that would persuade them of its validity.

I must agree with you here. There is no form of recording that can make everyone believe the Bible. I don't think it would matter how many people had written the events down because it's still eyewitness testimony. The Bible requires faith. Period. As for your question, I would not do anything different. You can please some of the people some of the time and so on

[Jax Agnesson]

Just another thought. The ultimate eye-witness to the events would be God Himself.
So. If I were God, and very clever and very powerful and very prescient, and I wanted to communicate something so important I would have my own son die an agonising death as part of the message, how would I ensure that the message got through to the people I wanted to get it to, without cramping their sense of free will, or their sense that they had a choice about whether or not to know, love and serve me?
Well, I suspect I might be able to do rather better than some bunches of mutually-contradictory obscure scrolls. Maybe I'd send updated and translated versions to lots of different language-groups, every couple of centuries. When it was seen that these miraculously-appearing books contained a clear and consistent message, people would be able to choose to know love and serve me and to be happy with me forever yadda yadda. . . In which case I would feel entitled to consider myself very clever and omniscient and all that.
But if only a few scriptures turned up, all contradicting each other in various ways, both major and minor, and no-one seemed able to agree on what kind of god it was that inspired them, if any, and they spent the next 2000 years ripping each other's bellies open in religious strife, then I'd have to question my own smartness.