# Ancient Sources and Christian Evidence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2011, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376 "2011-09-06T12:44:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/61 "2011-09-08T00:10:31Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And the guys in service to Pharaoh did greater things than Pharaoh is recorded as doing? > > I don’t believe this to be true. The guys in service to Pharaoh are recorded as turning sticks into snakes, right? Is the Pharaoh recorded as (a) doing that, or otherwise (b) turning inanimate objects into living creatures? The guys in service to Pharaoh are recorded as turning water into blood; is the Pharaoh recorded as turning water into anything? Is the Pharaoh recorded as performing any miracles whatsoever, or are the guys in his service recorded as doing greater things by default? > [@](#): > > Jesus empowered His disciples to take Jesus’ place, to become God’s sons (and daughters), as Jesus is - Jesus gives them equal status, Pharaoh does not. Compare the miracles (a) chalked up to those in service to Jesus with those (b) chalked up to Jesus, and then compare the miracles (c) chalked up to folks in service to Pharaoh with those (d) chalked up to Pharaoh. You seem to be arguing that a equals b and that c is less than d; I’d love to hear evidence of either, since I disbelieve both. (Unless, of course, you’re arguing that just _ **saying** _ “we’re of equal status” proves a miracle-worker is genuine instead of counterfeit?) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/62 "2011-09-08T00:57:38Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Okay, so you are agnostic towards them. What differentiates these claims from the Christian claims? From a reasonable point of view, as opposed to a subjective personal experience point of view. Jesus Christ made specific claims about the relevance of His life, words, and deeds to my life. Vespasian said absolutely nothing that’s at all relevant to myself. Hence there isn’t really any way to compare how I view the gospels and the records of Vespasian’s life. For instance, Jesus said that He was going to be the central figure in human history, that the church He founded would endure permanently, that his words and message would endure permanently, that his followers would convert additional followers and spread the gospel to every nation on earth, and so forth. I can see these promises fulfilled, while Vespasian made no promises about anything enduring that he would create or effect in the far future. Or, for another example, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to earth after His ascension. He guaranteed that the followers in his Church would continually have the presence and assistance of God in their lives. Again, Vespasian makes no promise remotely in the league of this–no promise at all, in fact, so there’s no possible comparison between what these two men said. Or I can look at the moral teachings of Jesus, which I judge to be better than anything that the secular world has to offer me. Or I can look at what Jesus has done in the lives of numerous people that I know personally. Or I can reflect on the personal relationship that I have with Jesus. (I know that many people cannot make any sense of that phrase, and when I was an atheist I certainly couldn’t either. But now I can and I know it to be true.) In all of these things Jesus has lead me to trust what He says. By contrast there is nothing that Vespasian says that can even be applied for comparison. So that is why I trust in Jesus and not Vespasian, and since Jesus performed miracles as a fundamental part of the person He was and the message He brought, I believe in the miracles that he performed. > [@](#): > > I haven’t been a Christian for many years now and the distance makes me appraise the situation radically differently than I once did. I’m still fairly confident that while I was a Christian, it was always a lot easier to critique various other religious claims - while mine was always immune. So I would probably say something similar to what you’ve said here - that I had this ‘inner’ truth that told me the Christian claims were correct, even though the evidence for them is worse than the evidence for Vespasian. > > This, of course, is vastly unsatisfying. Had I been a Muslim or a Zoroastrian, the Christian claims would obviously be lacking. Any person, regardless of who they are, has a religious viewpoint that is utterly different from the religious viewpoints of almost everyone else of the planet. That’s true of atheists as well agnostics, deists, universalists, and members of all religions. Of ocurse one can try to get away from this by insisting that everyone who disagrees is insane or a victime of chlidhood indoctrination, as certain atheists on this board do constantly. But that has the problem that if anyone asks you for evidence, you have to run away. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/63 "2011-09-08T01:44:13Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > (Unless, of course, you’re arguing that just _ **saying** _ “we’re of equal status” proves a miracle-worker is genuine instead of counterfeit?) This line of reasoning does not go to prove if the miracle is guanine or not. If there is a priest-congregation relationship and the congregation in mass will never become a priest, this is the system to look out for. Yes there are miracles that happen, but this system is ripe for counterfeit miracles where the priest, his selected few servants, and the priest’s faith get the credit. This is the system that is no different then Egypt or the OT temple system. If you meet people who aspire you to achieve who strive to lift you up to their level so you can obtain a position where you can help others as they have helped you and they do that with many others, always aspiring to build up and send out, and show you that you are capable of preforming miracles, you probably met Jesus living in that person - and that meet could be in any faith. It’s a great sign if the person treats you as a member of His family in a ‘idealized’ family. Where you are being raised up in that family to take over. That is the sign to look for. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/64 "2011-09-08T02:10:03Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > This line of reasoning does not go to prove if the miracle is guanine or not. > If there is a priest-congregation relationship and the congregation in mass will never become a priest, this is the system to look out for. What follower of Jesus has become equal to Jesus? Either in miracle-working ability, or in the eyes of the world, or – well, in what capacity do you think is key? > [@](#): > > It’s a great sign if the person treats you as a member of His family in a ‘idealized’ family. Where you are being raised up in that family to take over. That is the sign to look for. In words, or deeds? Anyone can _ **say** _ that I’m being groomed to take over the family business upon gaining equal status; what’s the acid test? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/65 "2011-09-08T02:31:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > For instance, Jesus said that He was going to be the central figure in human history, that the church He founded would endure permanently, that his words and message would endure permanently, that his followers would convert additional followers and spread the gospel to every nation on earth, and so forth. Cite for Jesus saying any of these things? Cite for any of those things coming true? > [@](#): > > Or, for another example, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to earth after His ascension. Cite? How would this mean anything if he did say it, since it never happened? > [@](#): > > He guaranteed that the followers in his Church would continually have the presence and assistance of God in their lives. Again, cite that he said it, and cite that it happened? > [@](#): > > Again, Vespasian makes no promise remotely in the league of this–no promise at all, in fact, so there’s no possible comparison between what these two men said. This is yet another example of special pleading. You’re creating an absolutely meaningless criterion. The claims they made about themselves (and you can’t even prove that Jesus actually made these claims) are completely irrelevant to whether or not they did or did not violate the laws of physics. > [@](#): > > Or I can look at the moral teachings of Jesus, which I judge to be better than anything that the secular world has to offer me. What is an example of a moral teaching of Jesus that didn’t exist before Jesus, or that the secular world doesn’t teach; > [@](#): > > Or I can look at what Jesus has done in the lives of numerous people that I know personally. How do you know that Jesus has done anything in the lives of any human being since his death? > [@](#): > > Or I can reflect on the personal relationship that I have with Jesus. (I know that many people cannot make any sense of that phrase, and when I was an atheist I certainly couldn’t either. But now I can and I know it to be true.) This is not even worth commenting on. > [@](#): > > In all of these things Jesus has lead me to trust what He says. What does Jesus say and how do you know? > [@](#): > > By contrast there is nothing that Vespasian says that can even be applied for comparison. Still an irrelevant criterion, especially since you have no idea what Jesus said or taught. > [@](#): > > So that is why I trust in Jesus and not Vespasian, and since Jesus performed miracles as a fundamental part of the person He was and the message He brought, I believe in the miracles that he performed. This is both circular and special. > [@](#): > > Any person, regardless of who they are, has a religious viewpoint that is utterly different from the religious viewpoints of almost everyone else of the planet. That’s true of atheists as well agnostics, deists, universalists, and members of all religions. I don’t have a religious viewpoint at all. > [@](#): > > Of ocurse one can try to get away from this get away from what? > [@](#): > > by insisting that everyone who disagrees is insane or a victime of chlidhood indoctrination, as certain atheists on this board do constantly. I don’t do this, and you’re trying to change the subject. Nothing in your entire post here offers a reason to believe the miracle stories of the New Testament other than special pleading and the circular argument that you believe it because you believe it. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/66 "2011-09-08T12:05:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What follower of Jesus has become equal to Jesus? Either in miracle-working ability, or in the eyes of the world, or – well, in what capacity do you think is key? Using the words of Jesus: > [@](#): > > John 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. > > 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of\*\* your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. > > 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— > [@=The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > In words, or deeds? Anyone can _ **say** _ that I’m being groomed to take over the family business upon gaining equal status; what’s the acid test? As I stated before there is no acid test you can use until God gives you one. Deeds can be misconstrued, and in Words there is much power that the world does not recognize. God weighs the heart - that is the ‘acid test’ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/67 "2011-09-08T13:27:11Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Using the words of Jesus: Er, yes; for the sake of argument, those are, indeed, the _ **words** _ of Jesus, in that he _ **said** _ that. But is that what then happened? Are they in fact recorded as performing miracles that equal or surpass his high-end feats? The folks in service to Pharaoh are recorded as performing miracles beyond anything Pharaoh personally whipped up; are the folks in service to Jesus recorded as doing likewise? > [@](#): > > As I stated before there is no acid test you can use until God gives you one. Deeds can be misconstrued, and in Words there is much power that the world does not recognize. God weighs the heart - that is the ‘acid test’ So when Jesus performed miracles, people in that time and place would have been 100% justified in dismissing the whole thing with a brisk explanation that _“deeds can be misconstrued,”_ because there’s no acid test for telling genuine miracle workers apart from counterfeit ones? _“Maybe he’s like Moses, but maybe he’s like the Pharaoh’s crew; there’s no way to know, with the possible exception of tricks involving sand and lice?”_ There’s only an acid test for God to weigh our hearts, not one that lets us evaluate miracle workers? Am I reading you correctly? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/68 "2011-09-08T14:36:30Z")
The OP is I think labouring under a fundamental mis-understanding of the arguement from history. The pro-resurrection argument comes not out of a simple consideration of miracles, but out of the impact of Christianity on world history. From looking at the rise of Christianity it is clear that something made the early Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and stick to this claim even under persecution. The question then becomes how did the Christians come to believe this, especially when there was no real anticedents to this belief. Into this question the NT plays in as historical evidence, but the focus really remains the question how the beliefs of the Christians originate. This is the form of argument that people like NT Wright use, that the best explaination of the rise of Chistianity is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. In that sense the miracles of Vespasian or those recorded by other Roman historians are simply dis-analagous. These accounts have had little to no real impact on history, and therefore from that point of view there is really nothing to explain. Maybe they were recording history accurately, maybe not. In the understanding of the people of the day the claims were quite run of the mill and easily incorporated into their existing system of belief. Really each miracle claim stands alone and must be judged alone. Just because someone believes in the possibility of miracles does not mean that one is bound to believe every miracle story. No-one would suggest that if you believe in materialistic naturalism, therefore you must believe every historical account that fits that mould. Presented with a possible miracle story, I think there are three major responses. You could believe that there is a more likely non-miraculous explaination for the presented evidence, and therefore believe that the miracle claim is false. You could believe that there is no better non-miraculous explaination for the evidence presented and so believe the miracle did in some way happen. Or you can believe that the miracle did happen, but the reasons stated for the miracle are mistaken. The existence of “non-Christian” miracles does not invalidate Christianity. The bible itself records people that were not part of the people of God, but were able through whatever means to perform miracles. The Egyptians in Pharoah’s court is one obvious example. So whether a Christian believes that other miracles happens is really up to them and their estimation of the evidence. While I accept that a number of miracles have happened, I am skeptical of the miracles of Vespasian. Simply put I don’t think that the evidence is anywhere near as good as you claim it to be. For instance if you actually read Tacitus account, it is not clear whether he actually believes himself that the alleged miracle took place. Tacitus gives a very tounge-in-cheek account of the whole thing, presenting Vespasian as a transparent schemer who only agreed to do anythin when it was clear that if it didn’t work he could simply blame the recipients. Additionally the end of the account implies quite strongly that Vespasian bribed the “witnesses” to the event, obviously with the motive of promoting the point of the story, that Vespasian was close to the Gods and therefore a good person to have ruling Rome. The evidence in this particular case does not seem to add up, and I think it more likely that the story was simply fabricated by Vespasian himself to further his own political ends. In concluding this I am not somehow using special pleading. I am using exactly the same criteria that I use for evaluating the claims of Christianity, namely that of best explaination. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/69 "2011-09-08T14:56:48Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > The OP is I think labouring under a fundamental mis-understanding of the arguement from history. The pro-resurrection argument comes not out of a simple consideration of miracles, but out of the impact of Christianity on world history. … > > From looking at the rise of **the Pharao** it is clear that something made the early \*\* Egypyians\*\* believe that **the Pharao was the incarnation of Ra** The question then becomes how did the \*\* Egypyians\*\* come to believe this, especially when there was no real anticedents to this belief. …the focus really remains the question how the beliefs of the \*\* Egypyians\*\*originate. This is the form of argument that people like NT Wright use, that the best explaination of the rise of **Egypt** is that **the Pharao really was the incarnation of Ra**. _Boldings by me of course_ Good post, **Calculon** , and appreciated. I think we do understand the argument from history, however. We just think it sucks. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/70 "2011-09-08T15:05:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Er, yes; for the sake of argument, those are, indeed, the _ **words** _ of Jesus, in that he _ **said** _ that. But is that what then happened? Are they in fact recorded as performing miracles that equal or surpass his high-end feats? Jesus sent them out to heal the sick & cast out demons & raise the dead, and they were excited when they returned to Jesus reporting good things. Peter walked on water and almost called fire down from heaven. > [@](#): > > So when Jesus performed miracles, people in that time and place would have been 100% justified in dismissing the whole thing with a brisk explanation that _“deeds can be misconstrued,”_ because there’s no acid test for telling genuine miracle workers apart from counterfeit ones? Yes and but it’s worse then that, because some people could not see the miracles happen. Jesus’ ministry shows that Jesus was somewhat taken by the poor results of the miracles in terms of bringing people to God. Also evident in scriptures is how often miracles were demanded of him as proof. And when they were done they accused Jesus as being demon possessed and acting with the power of Satan. So the above is probably the reason God doesn’t use miracles to prove He is God, because they don’t work for that purpose. > [@](#): > > There’s only an acid test for God to weigh our hearts, not one that lets us evaluate miracle workers? Am I reading you correctly? There are tests that can God can teach you, but apparently miracles are not the standard God wants one to use, nor is it the method He uses. Miracles are more for what is needed for a believer to do the work of God, not for the unbeliever to become a believer. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/71 "2011-09-08T15:08:44Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > The OP is I think labouring under a fundamental mis-understanding of the arguement from history. The pro-resurrection argument comes not out of a simple consideration of miracles, but out of the impact of Christianity on world history. From looking at the rise of Christianity it is clear that something made the early Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and stick to this claim even under persecution. None of this has any support at all, actually. There is no evidence that the earliest Christians (i.e the apostles themselves) ever made this claim, nor is there any evidence that they were persecuted for saying it. Even when Christians were eventually persecuted, it wasn’t because of their belief in the resurrection, or because of any other specific belief. The Romans didn’t give a shit what they believed. They were unpopular because they were viewed as unpatriotic. They wouldn’t aknowledge or contribute to the state temples (this was seen more as a civic duty than a religious one), they wouldn’t fight for their country and they were just generally seen as anti-Rome. Their beliefs in Jesus were irrelevant. It is a complete fiction that any of them were ever persecuted for saying they believed in the Resurrection. The Romans couldn’t have cared less about that belief. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/72 "2011-09-08T15:25:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > But that has the problem that if anyone asks you for evidence, you have to run away. It’s amazing that you have the chutzpah to say that, considering that there was [a long, multipage thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=621397) dedicated to your claim that you have evidence for Christianity. In which you failed as utterly as could be imagined to provide anything resembling evidence and just, as you put it, ran away. Ballsy. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/73 "2011-09-08T15:26:37Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Jesus sent them out to heal the sick & cast out demons & raise the dead, and they were excited when they returned to Jesus reporting good things. Peter walked on water and almost called fire down from heaven. Well, “almost” doesn’t count, and the healing and raising and casting out just covers some but not all of the stuff Jesus did; Pharaoh, by contrast, isn’t recorded as performing any miracles that folks in service to him didn’t also manage. So I’m unclear on why you’re arguing that a grant of status is the sine qua non in the former case and absent in the other; it seems to be the reverse. > [@](#): > > Yes and but it’s worse then that, because some people could not see the miracles happen. Jesus’ ministry shows that Jesus was somewhat taken by the poor results of the miracles in terms of bringing people to God. Also evident in scriptures is how often miracles were demanded of him as proof. And when they were done they accused Jesus as being demon possessed and acting with the power of Satan. Well, yeah; as you say, there’s no “acid test” that would let us tell divine miracles apart from other ones. Or, to put it another way: > [@](#): > > So the above is probably the reason God doesn’t use miracles to prove He is God, because they don’t work for that purpose. So the miracles worked by Jesus and his disciples aren’t evidence they were acting with the power of God, right? The miracles _ **don’t,** _ in fact, “work for that purpose” – precisely because they look the same no matter what entity is powering them? > [@](#): > > There are tests that can God can teach you, but apparently miracles are not the standard God wants one to use, nor is it the method He uses. So any arguments that use miracles to establish that Jesus was doing the will of God are, in your view, flawed and irrelevant? > [@](#): > > Miracles are more for what is needed for a believer to do the work of God, not for the unbeliever to become a believer. Uh, okay. Wait, _ **what?** _ I’m already a believer; why the heck do you think a miracle would get me to do the work of God, if that miracle could just as easily be from someone like unto a guy in service to Pharaoh? You say that working a miracle is no proof that God is backing it – _“they don’t work for that purpose”_, you said – and so I don’t see how any other such conclusion could follow from it instead. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/74 "2011-09-08T16:27:15Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I didn’t take it as derogatory, I was really trying to say you have absolutely no way to differentiate, until God teaches you a way. Good - I just wanted to make the clarification. > [@kanicbird](#): > > All you can do is all you can be expected to do given your level of learning, so the above is a non-issue. Some of it is trial and error, you find out what works and what doesn’t What works sometimes and not others. It’s a learning process. > > My own experience is yes a person can get off track for a time, but God will bring you around and use that opportunity to teach you further. If you are deluded by Satan you are diluted by Satan, and yes it happens. Just look to the people in Egypt diluted by Pharaoh, God allowed them to believe it for a time, but eventually God will call His children out. > > In my own walk I worshiped the one who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, not knowing that was Satan. Now I realize that God pulled His children out of Sodom and I assume Gomorrah before Satan destroyed it. To me it is very clear in scripture, but back then it wasn’t, though it caused a apparent contradiction of a loving God. While I can respect that you feel this works for you - it does not work for me. I suppose at the end of the day the experiential aspect is what separates us - is this what you would say? (Or perhaps our reaction to the experiential?). > [@kanicbird](#): > > I wasn’t using it as a ‘fact’ but just to get the concept across of how some people may be able to see something that others can’t, because they haven’t been taught to - their brain can’t process it and thus ignores it. I though it would be more understandable then going into the Lord coming to Stephan as written in Acts. I find that the Native American / Spaniard example is easier to understand as it theorizes why some people can’t see things. I’m skipping some territory here - I get the concept you are using, I’m not sure I agree with it. I had heard that exact ‘fact’ before, but I don’t know where I heard it from, I thought you might. > [@kanicbird](#): > > The question would be what is the point? If you said you flied in a plane yesterday, I would tend to accept that for what it’s worth. It is not spectacular, it is common. It is the same to me if someone said God healed someone, it’s pretty common, so no reason to dismiss it, though the question of placing one’s faith on that person or that person’s faith is different and the two should not be equated. Well, if the person is being mislead (say working for Satan) and genuinely believes that through faking a miracle others would come to believe as they erroneously believe, that would provide incentive. > [@kanicbird](#): > > I use the scriptures because they work for me (and I’ve been called to it), they help me define things in this world and life. In any discipline such as in careers, there are certainly books of reference to use and refer back to, in many ways the scriptures are no different for me. They are my course study books and I know where to find certain things. > > The scriptures as I’ve been taught are useful among other things for building the neural pathways to see beyond what we have been taught was possible to see, thereby breaking the limitation that was discussed with the Spaniards ships and the native Americans. > > What you can learn from scriptures? I really don’t know. It may or may not be your book to learn from. You may never have a deep understanding of it, you may excel at it. I’m still not quite sure I understand. Let’s put an example out - you mention career. How would you use scripture to help you here? I mean, would you say that Jesus teaches that all men are brothers and therefore you should do social work? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Jesus Christ made specific claims about the relevance of His life, words, and deeds to my life. Vespasian said absolutely nothing that’s at all relevant to myself. Hence there isn’t really any way to compare how I view the gospels and the records of Vespasian’s life. I don’t get this qualification - to be honest - Aesop’s fables provide insight on how to live, but that doesn’t mean the stories have to be true. Had a religion of Vespasian being the Messiah taken off, I’m sure there would have been quotes and such relevant to your life. This criticism seems relevant _after_ one accepts the miracle claims OR it doesn’t seem relevant with regard to the historicity of the claims. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > For instance, Jesus said that He was going to be the central figure in human history, that the church He founded would endure permanently, that his words and message would endure permanently, that his followers would convert additional followers and spread the gospel to every nation on earth, and so forth. I can see these promises fulfilled, while Vespasian made no promises about anything enduring that he would create or effect in the far future. Followers who may or may not have known Jesus said this of him. This is all hindsight, IMO - suppose Mormonism takes off and becomes the predominant religion - does that lend any credence to the central claims of the Angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith? I don’t see how it does. I recognize that you are trying to show differences between Jesus and Vespasian, but I’m not sure why any of what you’ve said lends support to the miracles claimed by Jesus as opposed to Vespasian. Do the miraculous claims of those who speak with the dead (Van Praagh, John Edwards, etc) become more credible depending on the ‘how to live’ books they put out? It seems to me that they do not. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Or, for another example, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to earth after His ascension. He guaranteed that the followers in his Church would continually have the presence and assistance of God in their lives. Again, Vespasian makes no promise remotely in the league of this–no promise at all, in fact, so there’s no possible comparison between what these two men said. This seems to presuppose Christianity, unfortunately - which is what I’m trying to avoid. You are already taking the Bible’s claims as true prior to an evaluation of the claims therein. Is your stance that only miracles that are foundational to Christianity can be legitimate? If not, it seems we are back where we started in terms of evaluating Vespasian. Had Vespasian said something that was relevant to Judaism (say something about how to worship) would that make his miracle claim more credible? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Or I can look at the moral teachings of Jesus, which I judge to be better than anything that the secular world has to offer me. Or I can look at what Jesus has done in the lives of numerous people that I know personally. Or I can reflect on the personal relationship that I have with Jesus. (I know that many people cannot make any sense of that phrase, and when I was an atheist I certainly couldn’t either. But now I can and I know it to be true.) In all of these things Jesus has lead me to trust what He says. By contrast there is nothing that Vespasian says that can even be applied for comparison. So that is why I trust in Jesus and not Vespasian, and since Jesus performed miracles as a fundamental part of the person He was and the message He brought, I believe in the miracles that he performed. I’m not sure how the moral teachings of Jesus were anything new or special. They seem to spring from Judaism and there were definite predecessors to many of the teachings (such as the golden rule). > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Any person, regardless of who they are, has a religious viewpoint that is utterly different from the religious viewpoints of almost everyone else of the planet. That’s true of atheists as well agnostics, deists, universalists, and members of all religions. Of ocurse one can try to get away from this by insisting that everyone who disagrees is insane or a victime of chlidhood indoctrination, as certain atheists on this board do constantly. But that has the problem that if anyone asks you for evidence, you have to run away. Yes, everyone looks at things through a viewpoint - that’s not exactly what raises my concern. I do not see how someone can be confident of the Christian claims - they seem to be attested to worse than other claims in antiquity that are not believed and there is nothing all that unique about Christianity. It seems just another religion. Do you believe there is something radically different about Christianity that is objective? If so, what is it? > [@Calculon](#): > > The OP is I think labouring under a fundamental mis-understanding of the arguement from history. The pro-resurrection argument comes not out of a simple consideration of miracles, but out of the impact of Christianity on world history. This is not how it’s often put via the likes of WLC. The ‘impact’ argument is highly dubious. > [@Calculon](#): > > From looking at the rise of Christianity it is clear that something made the early Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and stick to this claim even under persecution. Rose from the dead is a bit vague - physically or spiritually? In any event, yes, something did lead to the rise of Christianity. The question is, was it supernatural? There doesn’t seem to be anything credible to support this. One could say that something lead to the rise in the belief that Vespasian cured blind people with spit. Are you here to state that it was a miracle that did this? > [@Calculon](#): > > The question then becomes how did the Christians come to believe this, especially when there was no real anticedents to this belief. No antecedents? There were plenty - I think it’s clear that the Jews at the time were expecting an apocalypse. There were dozens of different sects of Messiah cults at the time. The Gospels are filled with cherry picked Old Testament scriptures to be ‘fulfilled’ (casting of lots, donkey rides, being two examples). I’m unclear as to how to take your comment here - it seems at odds with history. > [@Calculon](#): > > Into this question the NT plays in as historical evidence, but the focus really remains the question how the beliefs of the Christians originate. This is the form of argument that people like NT Wright use, that the best explaination of the rise of Chistianity is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. The problem here is that if this is true, then the best explanation for the rise of Vespasian miracles is that Vespasian really did cure blind people. Or how about this: The best explanation for the belief that Sabbatai Zevi did miracles is that he really did miracles. The best explanation for UFO abductions is that aliens are really abducting people. The best explanation for the rise in astrology beliefs is that the planets really do influence our future. The best explanation for urban legend X is that urban legend X is true. My point is that the quality of evidence for all of these is exceedingly poor - Vespasian’s miracle is better attested than the Jesus miracles, yet you don’t believe them do you? > [@Calculon](#): > > In that sense the miracles of Vespasian or those recorded by other Roman historians are simply dis-analagous. This is strange since Jesus is said to have done the **exact same miracle**. So is your stance that Jesus didn’t do this miracle? > [@Calculon](#): > > These accounts have had little to no real impact on history, and therefore from that point of view there is really nothing to explain. Maybe they were recording history accurately, maybe not. In the understanding of the people of the day the claims were quite run of the mill and easily incorporated into their existing system of belief. The impact on history is not a good indicator on the truth behind the claims. If it were, I guess the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians would be valid. We all have 3 spirit bodies. Or how about the Ancient Sumerians? Most of modern society has it’s building blocks on what they uncovered - does this mean that the Sumerian creation myth is true? This impact on history is not the main focus of apologists like WLC. > [@Calculon](#): > > Really each miracle claim stands alone and must be judged alone. Just because someone believes in the possibility of miracles does not mean that one is bound to believe every miracle story. No-one would suggest that if you believe in materialistic naturalism, therefore you must believe every historical account that fits that mould. I’m not sure how to reconcile this with your impact in history argument - it seems that we cannot evaluate a miracle based on the evidence of that miracle, we have to evaluate it based on the future effects on the people who believe in that miracle. > [@Calculon](#): > > The existence of “non-Christian” miracles does not invalidate Christianity. The bible itself records people that were not part of the people of God, but were able through whatever means to perform miracles. The Egyptians in Pharoah’s court is one obvious example. So whether a Christian believes that other miracles happens is really up to them and their estimation of the evidence. That wasn’t my point - my point was the non christian miracle is better attested than the christian miracle. It is more credible from a critical standpoint. The evidence for the Christian miracles is substantially poorer than the evidence for Vespasian, yet you surely don’t believe Vespasian did a miracle, do you? > [@Calculon](#): > > While I accept that a number of miracles have happened, I am skeptical of the miracles of Vespasian. Simply put I don’t think that the evidence is anywhere near as good as you claim it to be. For instance if you actually read Tacitus account, it is not clear whether he actually believes himself that the alleged miracle took place. Tacitus gives a very tounge-in-cheek account of the whole thing, presenting Vespasian as a transparent schemer who only agreed to do anythin when it was clear that if it didn’t work he could simply blame the recipients. Additionally the end of the account implies quite strongly that Vespasian bribed the “witnesses” to the event, obviously with the motive of promoting the point of the story, that Vespasian was close to the Gods and therefore a good person to have ruling Rome. You mistake me, I do not think that the evidence for Vespasian is particularly good - I think it is better than what we have for Jesus. Your interpretation of the account seems suspect, please back it up. Here is the full account: > [@](#): > > In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor’s knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar’s foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. “In the one case,” they said, “the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar’s, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers.” And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood. > > Vespasian thus **came to conceive a deeper desire to visit the sanctuary of Serapis** , that he might consult the God about the interests of his throne. He gave orders that all persons should be excluded from the temple. He had entered, and was absorbed in worship, when he saw behind him one of the chief men of Egypt, named Basilides, whom he knew at the time to be detained by sickness at a considerable distance, as much as several days journey from Alexandria. He enquired of the priests, whether Basilides had on this day entered the temple. He enquired of others whom he met, whether he had been seen in the city. At length, sending some horsemen, he ascertained that at that very instant the man had been eighty miles distant. He then concluded that it was a divine apparition, and discovered an oracular force in the name of Basilides. There is nothing about bribery here. Further, the experience seems to have strengthened Vespasian’s beliefs. > [@Calculon](#): > > The evidence in this particular case does not seem to add up, and I think it more likely that the story was simply fabricated by Vespasian himself to further his own political ends. In concluding this I am not somehow using special pleading. I am using exactly the same criteria that I use for evaluating the claims of Christianity, namely that of best explaination. This is ad-hoc and has no support. It’s a nice idea to handwave away the evidence, but in doing so, one could easily do the same for claims that are worse attested than this account. How about this - Christ’s friends were dismayed when he died. The believers were not ready to give up though, they were perhaps like the member of heaven’s gate cult who still believes or like the husband of the wife who destroyed Joseph Smith’s original translations of the sacred tablets, Peter, sensing an opportunity, decides to say that he witnessed Christ rising from the dead. He then fabricates the accounts to secure his power in the early church. > [@Latro](#): > > _Boldings by me of course_ > > Good post, **Calculon** , and appreciated. > I think we do understand the argument from history, however. > > We just think it sucks. As would most Christians who were encountering it with regards to other religions (as your post implies). ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/75 "2011-09-08T16:40:28Z")
Basically what I’m getting here is that the support for the claims of Christianity are: 1. How subsequent believers changed the world. 2. Personal experience. **Neither** of which actually can demonstrate the initial claims of Christianity are true. **Both** of these can support the claims of quite a few other religions. Shoot, if ‘impact’ somehow yields confirmation of basic beliefs, then what does that say about racism? I’m puzzled at how a believer is supposed to be confident in their beliefs - perhaps through a leap of faith, as Kierkegaard suggests (granted, I could be completely misconstruing him). That’s fine, I suppose. It’s not particularly rational though. If that’s the case, then why get combative when atheists say Christianity has no evidence behind it? Why take offense when an atheist says that the Christian basis is ‘faith’? It seems it is quite obvious now that the life/history, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus are firmly a faith issue. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/76 "2011-09-08T16:42:01Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > The OP is I think labouring under a fundamental mis-understanding of the arguement from history. The pro-resurrection argument comes not out of a simple consideration of miracles, but out of the impact of Christianity on world history. From looking at the rise of Christianity it is clear that something made the early Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and stick to this claim even under persecution. The question then becomes how did the Christians come to believe this, especially when there was no real anticedents to this belief. Into this question the NT plays in as historical evidence, but the focus really remains the question how the beliefs of the Christians originate. This is the form of argument that people like NT Wright use, that the best explaination of the rise of Chistianity is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. > > Calculon. Then I trust you agree that Mohammed really did talk to Allah, since the historical impact of Islam is quite great. There were of course plenty of previous accounts of resurrections. In fact, the Jewish belief that God did not have children was relatively more exceptional than the pagan belief that gods did - too bad Christianity backslid on that account. But the real kicker is that those closest to the supposed resurrection event, in both time and space, were relatively less likely to believe in it. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/77 "2011-09-08T16:50:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > There were of course plenty of previous accounts of resurrections. To pick up on this - all religions have some unique **aspects** , I suppose. So one could argue that Christianities resurrection narrative was unique because it involved a demigod dying on a cross after being accused by the Sanhedrein and sentenced to death by Pilate. One could not argue that it was unique because of a dying and resurrecting God. So the claim of uniqueness with regard to Christianity is rather unimpressive. It’s further complicated by the fact that there are numerous things in the NT that are taken from the Old Testament. Another complication is that the early apologists would argue that Christianity wasn’t unique, it’s just that it was true (as Justin the Apologist argued). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/78 "2011-09-08T16:55:46Z")
It’s also just not an argument anyway. The “unique-ness” of a claim has no bearing on it’s historical veracity. All religions have unique claims. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/79 "2011-09-08T17:01:59Z")
Isn’t every odd ball Christian fringe cult fronted by a guy with his own interpretation of God’s word. And isn’t his justification that God taught him to use the bible this way? So Jonestown and Koolaid are just the cost of deciding God will teach individuals how to interpret, an intentionally conflicting, far fetched piece of fiction. And we’re supposed to know you, and your ilk are different from him, how? He convinced people, had believers, claimed divine direction, just following God’s teachings. Pretty thin argument, to me. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376/80 "2011-09-08T17:04:52Z")
> [@](#): > > So any arguments that use miracles to establish that Jesus was doing the will of God are, in your view, flawed and irrelevant? Correct as shown in scriptures, it is only by revelation by the Father that one can deduce that Jesus was doing God’s will > [@](#): > > Uh, okay. > > Wait, _ **what?** _ I’m already a believer; why the heck do you think a miracle would get me to do the work of God, if that miracle could just as easily be from someone like unto a guy in service to Pharaoh? You say that working a miracle is no proof that God is backing it – _“they don’t work for that purpose”_, you said – and so I don’t see how any other such conclusion could follow from it instead. The miracle is not to get you to do the work of God, it is the tools that you sometimes need to do the work if you accept to do it. An analogy, you work for a company (you work for the Father), your boss (your Father) offered you a project to do. It is to meet some people who work at a branch office. You go there and find that these people are miles away and there is no way for you to visit them. You call your boss and he send you the corporate jet so you can complete your mission (the miracle). If you don’t work for the company you can’t expect these things, if you do work for the company but don’t take on to do those projects you can’t expect those things either. Miracles are just heavenly resources needed to do your Father’s work. Also generally like any job the more you do the more the Father will be willing to do in terms of using such resources. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ancient-sources-and-christian-evidence/595376.md?page=5)