History

[1213]

Often it is asked can Christian demonstrate something that happened long time ago to be a fact. I don’t know how to demonstrate any historical matter to be a fact. So, my question is, can you prove any historical matter to be a fact? Please give one example and how would you demonstrate it is a fact and not just someone’s story?

[unknown soldier]

Often it is asked can Christian demonstrate something that happened long time ago to be a fact. I don’t know how to demonstrate any historical matter to be a fact. So, my question is, can you prove any historical matter to be a fact? Please give one example and how would you demonstrate it is a fact and not just someone’s story?

Generally, history is based on what trained historians think probably happened in the past. Facts, on the other hand, are so sure to be true that their truth is essentially certain. Although some historical events might be considered facts, most historical events are not that likely. Examples of historical events that might be considered factual would include the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The attack on the WTC was captured on film as you can see below.

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213 in post #1]

No, no, no.
It is not about proving some mundane fact of history is true or provable. It is about proving whether or not snakes talked, cripples were healed, the blind allowed to see, and any kind of faith will be rewarded in heaven.
That Caesar crossed the Rubicon is perfectly possible. Events back it up. That Jesus raised the dead, is not even documented by the survivor, or anyone close to him.
So when you get your history to start documenting miracles then you compare the Bible and history apples to apples. Until then there is a difference between history and fairytales.

[1213]

Generally, history is based on what trained historians think probably happened in the past. Facts, on the other hand, are so sure to be true that their truth is essentially certain. Although some historical events might be considered facts, most historical events are not that likely. Examples of historical events that might be considered factual would include the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001....

Thank you, I think that is very interesting example, because for many that is multiple miracles. Firstly, how it was physically possible to happen only by the planes, there is lot of reason to think it had something else. I don’t think it would be possible the way it is officially explained. It is interesting also that some claim the videos about planes hitting are fake. Second miracle is how the terrorists got the planes and were able to make the move that normally should not be possible. And that building 7 and Pentagon, lot of miracles that should not be possible, if things went by the official story and if the laws of physics are valid. Miraculous is also how good fortune it all was for some people (not to the official terrorists).

But all though there are many miraculous parts in the story, it is very probable that there were buildings that collapsed, because the places can be seen and there is lot of images of those buildings. But the miracle part, I think it is problematic, because some for person who knows enough, there is no miracles. All miracles become normal when you see and understand enough.

If we compare this to Biblical history, there is also the part that modern people usually see as miraculous and the part that is normally possible. For example, the story of few fish and bread that were multiplied miraculously. For us it may be miraculous if it really happened. But I don’t think it was miraculous to Jesus, who knew how to do it. We may be able to believe that part that there was person named Jesus who talked something, because that would not be a miracle. But at least most of us can’t multiply food, which is why by our own limited knowledge and understanding we suppress the limits of what is possible. I think it is often probably better that people are limited in that way, else they would do even more evil than now.

This leads to question, is our own limited knowledge and understanding proper way to limit what is possible? By what I see, most people think of probabilities, when there is a matter that is beyond their possibilities. And also people think is the story teller otherwise trustworthy. In the WTC case we could think that there is chance for plane to hit the buildings. For those who don’t know much about structures, is also relatively good chance for the planes to also do the damage without something else. And many trusts to mainstream media and to the leaders who are on the same side as the media. But are they really trustworthy? Many of them have reason to lie and many people have been caught on lying and many people just don’t know enough to tell correct story. There are many reasons to doubt everything people say. For me, one way to evaluate trustworthiness is to think what the motive or benefit is for the one who tells the story. If there is possibility for great price for lying, then I doubt very much that the person is speaking the truth. If there is possibility for great harm to the teller, and the person still tells the story, it makes the person more believable.

In the case of WTC, it seems to me that it was just what the mainstream media and leaders wanted, which is why I don’t trust to them in this case. There was no harm or risk for them to tell the story. In the case of the Bible, I don’t see similar benefit and it seems there was probably only difficulties for those who told the stories. But, obviously this can be called subjective opinion, which is not enough for many. And the matter remains unsolved.

This means for example that I don’t think we can demonstrate that the bread-fish-miracle really happened. I believe it, because I trust to the Bible. And I think it would be greater miracle that we would have the Bible, if things really didn’t go as the Bible tells. But, luckily the point in the Bible is not to believe miracle happened. The point is to become righteous and for that, it is not crucial to believe the miracle story.

And I think same is with the WTC case, I don’t think we can demonstrate it really happened as the
official story tells. But, it is probable that there were those buildings and they were destroyed.

And finally, if we would have on film Jesus making the miracle, would you believe?

[1213]

...That Jesus raised the dead, is not even documented by the survivor, or anyone close to him.
...

Someone documented it because we have the Bible. Now, why would someone who is not close to Jesus do it? Why would anyone believe it if it is not from someone that was close to Jesus?

[brunumb]

...That Jesus raised the dead, is not even documented by the survivor, or anyone close to him.
...

Someone documented it because we have the Bible. Now, why would someone who is not close to Jesus do it? Why would anyone believe it if it is not from someone that was close to Jesus?

It is far more likely to have been faked than the WTC tragedy. Nothing in the latter requires supernatural intervention no matter how difficult any individual might have in comprehending it. The evidence is in and only the hard core conspiracy theorists refuse to accept it.

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213 in post #5]

You know even as I read it I knew you would twist what I said, and say exactly what you did.
I was referring of course to Lazarus, and those close to him, not Jesus.
It seems the only way to prove the Bible is to invoke the Bible.

If a man was indeed back from the dead, it would cause a sensation.
History notes no such sensation.
Lazarus did not record his experience, no one recorded his experience, not even the Bible.

Now can you respond in the proper context, or is quoting out of context one other way to prove the Bible?

[1213]

...
Lazarus did not record his experience, no one recorded his experience, not even the Bible...

What would it change if we would have his experience written? Would you believe someone’s testimony about that?

[brunumb]

...
Lazarus did not record his experience, no one recorded his experience, not even the Bible...

What would it change if we would have his experience written? Would you believe someone’s testimony about that?

That's not the issue. The fact that such an extraordinary event made no significant impression on anybody is what is disconcerting. The same applies to other events like dead saints coming out of their graves and walking the streets. Dead people coming back to life should be making the equivalent of headline news and the stories should have spread like wildfire. As it is, what we have comes across as nothing more than comic book stories of their day.

[1213]

... made no significant impression on anybody ...

If that would be true, we would not have the Bible.