Ancient Sources and Christian Evidence

[monavis]

@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.

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.

Then perhaps Christianity is not the proper route for you, or perhaps it will inspire you to look deeper into it.

We have been taught to by a public school / government system (aka a pyramid - or world system) that opposes people realizing they are God’s children ). I’m not saying that looking at it in a scientific point of view is bad, but IMHO misses much of what it’s about.

It goes into how we can only see how our brains were taught to see. If we are taught to see things only naturally, that’s how we will see them, if we are taught to see more then that, that’s how we will see them.

Right now on our time we have had a effort to diminish the supernatural seeing and that’s what we get.

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.

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.

It’s possible that God could use that faith healer. I even gave Pharaoh a bit of credit above as some of his power may have come though Pharaoh. I was using the example of a counterfeit miracle where the faith healer doesn’t do it however.
(various sections lumped together)
So what are you learning from the OT/NT?

I think my problem with understanding your examples is that I don’t really have a grasp of anything concrete here. You refer to the OT/NT as a source to learn from, but I am entirely unclear what it is you are suggesting that we learn from them. I suspect it’s not a literal history-type lesson, that is not your intent (or not how I read it to be).

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.
[/QUOTE]

One could just as well say; God taught me the Bible was wrong! Or that" Kanicbird is wrong so don’t believe him!!!" Then you would respond ,'Oh, That wasn’t God it was Satan".It seems what others say or do that doesn’t agree with you is of Satan!!!

[monavis]

@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.

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.
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.

According to the Bible writers, Jesus said he would come in his father’s glory with his angels before some of them standing there had died…it didn’t happen, He is also quoted by Matthew that Jesus said (when asked of the signs of the world’s end) that it would come before that generation passed away…the world is still here 2,000+ years later.

The translaters of the NT, decided tht since the world haden’t ended, then the word Generation meant something else, although Matthew wrote that there was 14 generations between David and Jesus, useing the same translation as we do to day for the word Generation!!

[monavis]

@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.

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.

Answering your first paragraph,In those days if a person was in a coma and then came out of it, people could well believe the person arose from the dead. I find it strange that His Mother and friends went to anoint the dead body(then maybe they didn’t believe in his ressurection) Non of his close friends seem to recognize him, and for some reason some only recognized the breaking of bread???

There was a person on TV (years ago) from India, that put himself into a comotose state, then he had them bury him,put boards over the hole,then cover it with dirt, he stayed there for 3 days then they were told to dig him up, he had brought himself out of the Coma. He said it took many years of practice

[monavis]

@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.

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.

Answering your first paragraph,In those days if a person was in a coma and then came out of it, people could well believe the person arose from the dead. I find it strange that His Mother and friends went to anoint the dead body(then maybe they didn’t believe in his ressurection) Non of his close friends seem to recognize him, and for some reason some only recognized the breaking of bread???

There was a person on TV (years ago0 a Swami from India, that put himself into a comotose state, then he had them bury him,put boards over the hole,then cover it with dirt, he stayed there for 3 days then they were told to dig him up, he had brought himself out of the Coma. He said it took many years of practice

[monavis]

@Voyager

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.

According to the 82d Psalm KJV he stated that all are god’s, and children of god, Jesus backed this up when accused of Blasphemy.

[monavis]

@monavis

Answering your first paragraph,In those days if a person was in a coma and then came out of it, people could well believe the person arose from the dead. I find it strange that His Mother and friends went to anoint the dead body(then maybe they didn’t believe in his ressurection) Non of his close friends seem to recognize him, and for some reason some only recognized the breaking of bread???

There was a person on TV (years ago0 a Swami from India, that put himself into a comotose state, then he had them bury him,put boards over the hole,then cover it with dirt, he stayed there for 3 days then they were told to dig him up, he had brought himself out of the Coma. He said it took many years of practice

I apologise for the double quote!

[kanicbird]

@monavis

One could just as well say; God taught me the Bible was wrong! Or that" Kanicbird is wrong so don’t believe him!!!" Then you would respond ,'Oh, That wasn’t God it was Satan".It seems what others say or do that doesn’t agree with you is of Satan!!!

I never said this nor do I agree with it. We all have our own paths, our own way of learning. If you are taken away and feel some teaching is false - that’s part of your path. I had this too, many paths I felt was false - thought it was exactly right for that person at that time.

But we do have this in agreement, it is sometimes Satan but while you state him as a great barrier to God’s truth, it is only in Satan’s mind (and the minds of some people) that Satan is that great. Yes God uses Satan, but at the same time plays him as a fiddle, letting Satan lead people right to God despite all of Satan’s best efforts to prevent that.

[rat_avatar]

@monavis

I apologise for the double quote!

Cite?

Even in a coma you need to breath, if not asphyxiation kill you very quickly as cells start to run out of ATP.

Even in the case of Lazarus syndrome, where a person awakes after CPR has failed must happen within minutes or there will be brain damage.

But the real issue is that you tell us about a vague unverifiable third party anecdote to try and justify how vague third party anecdotes from the past may be true.

[Voyager]

@kanicbird

Why do you assume supernatural events would obey natural laws such as repeatability?

ESP should be repeatable. Ghosts in haunted houses should be also. Remember, even such random events such as meteorite strikes show up often enough to be confirmed. The effects of supernatural events on natural things would do also. Otherwise, it is more likely coincidence - million to one shots happen nine times out of then, after all. [/pTerry]

Actually I would accept this, Alexander the Great very well could have been a Nephlium. And if Alexander the Great is accepted as a Nephelium there is no issue with Jesus being the Son of God, and for that matter explains much in our world like people who command great power over other, our leaders today in all disciplines. So those people with great power would be the evidence the OP is asking for in the existence of the sons of God having children with the daughters of men.

I thought they all got wiped out in the flood, unless you accuse Noah or his wife of being so descended. In any case, any inherent virtue Jesus would get from being God’s son is kind of wiped out by this example, isn’t it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@rat_avatar

Cite?

Even in a coma you need to breath, if not asphyxiation kill you very quickly as cells start to run out of ATP.

The kind of yogis who can do this are breathing, they can just slow their breathing and heart rates enough that they can appear to dead to a cursory examination.

It’s also a matter of historical fact that people were sometimes mistakenly pronounced dead in less technological eras. They were still breathing too. This is not a phenomenon of people actually ceasing to breathe, but of other people mistakenly thinking they have ceased to breathe.

[rat_avatar]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The kind of yogis who can do this are breathing, they can just slow their breathing and heart rates enough that they can appear to dead to a cursory examination.

It’s also a matter of historical fact that people were sometimes mistakenly pronounced dead in less technological eras. They were still breathing too. This is not a phenomenon of people actually ceasing to breathe, but of other people mistakenly thinking they have ceased to breathe.

monavis claimed they buried him, thus the suffocation.

I doubt he had been speared or that his rising caused many others to rise from the dead also.

If it did I would enjoy watching it as it sounds like it was on film.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@rat_avatar

I doubt he had been speared or that his rising caused many others to rise from the dead also.

So what?

[rat_avatar]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So what?

I typically do not respond to trite responses, especially from someone who has the capability to offer scholarly ones.
If you are to believe the gospels as presented in the common christian mythos, Jesus was speared by a roman soldier before being interred.
With your education you know this and by your response you are just being dismissive of my question for documentation.

From my reading of the gospels Mathew claims there was an earthquake, there was 3 hours of darkness and the saints were all raised from the dead and were known by others.

Pilate, after seeing all this still had to send a guard to watch the grave to make sure one one stole the body “lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead”

So Pilate, having an earthquake, 3 hours darkness and zombies all around town still thought that it was a hoax, a coma does not explain those claims.

I would still say any claim of supernatural events should have a very high bar.

That none of these events were recorded outside the gospels seems to infer them happening as being highly unlikely.

This kind of supernatural event requires a lot of evidence IMHO. No matter if that is in a religious text or a purported historical account.

[Meatros]

@Calculon

Meatros

So really your question is not genuine in the sense that you are actually wondering why people accept the gospels and not the miracles of Vespasian. You are trying to use it as some sort of “gotcha” trap to demonstrate that the gospels are unreliable.

I’m puzzled as to how you came to this - I have been sincere in my questions. As I stated from the outset, this (ancient sources/miracle claims/etc) was one of the factors that led to my deconversion. So I think it’s a very important issue.

As to a gotcha type trap - I have no idea what you meant - I have sprung nothing on you, the intent of my post was put forth in the OP. In the OP I specifically stated:

"I mean, the sources I listed above are superior to the Gospels since they are from historians (mostly) and they are not anonymous - yet I don’t think anyone bats an eye when dismissing them today? This strikes me as wrong - why expect anyone to believe the new testament when you don’t believe the better attested miracles of Vespasian? "
Have you not been paying attention? You act as though I’m now just stating that I don’t find the Gospels trustworthy.

What exactly do you think we’ve been discussing this entire time??

@Calculon

I think it fails on several counts, and for me remains an entirely unconvincing argument.

That’s fine - I’m not here to convince you.

@Calculon

First and foremost your accusation of “special pleading” on the part of Christians in accepting the gospel miracles is backwards. I think if there is any special pleading being done it is on the skeptic side in rejecting the historicity of the gospels. The simple fact is that if the gospels and other early NT writings presented Jesus as an entirely natural (as opposed to supernatural) person they would be accepted as historical largely without question. The only difficulty in accepting the gospels as historical is the fact that they record supernatural events, and many people have issues accepting the supernatural. Indeed the majority of NT scholars believe that the gospels and early Christian writings do have historical value, and generally accept the death, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and belief of the early Christians as being historical. Of course not all believe that the resurrection actually took place, and not all accept all four parts. But to argue that the NT writings are historically worthless is simply out of line with current scholarship on the issue.

Jesus is entirely natural?? Natural people can walk on water? Natural people are born of virgins? Are you serious?

I’m not arguing that the NT has absolutely no historical value - that’s a strawman. I think the accounts of Vespasian have historical value.

That said, I think neither are trustworthy enough to conclude that miracles have occurred. The entire point of this thread is related to this - the Gospels are worse evidence than what we have for Vespasian, yet no historian accepts Vespasian’s miracles as history.

When it comes to Jesus and the exact same miracle, conservative christian historians DO accept it as history. This doesn’t bother you though - instead you make the misleading claim that I view the Gospels as completely ahistorical as though there were simply no content within it that had any link to history.

I suppose it’s an easier claim to tackle than what I’m actually bringing up, so I can understand the appeal of attacking it.

@Calculon

While the gospels may not be perfect, a lot of well accepted historical facts is based on much flimsier evidence. So for instance most of what we know about 1st century Judea comes to us through a single source, Josphus. So Josephus, writing about people like Herod the great are writing about one century after his death, and yet we still accept that Josephus is for the most part accurate in the details that he records. Herod’s tomb was even found recently based on the description given by Josephus. If you discount the gospels as untrustworthy because of their “late” date of writing or because they are not written by eyewitnesses, then you must also discount nearly all of Josephus “Antiquities” when he is describing anything earlier than about 60AD or so.

This is confused - you say we accept Herod based on Josephus and then mention that we found his tomb.

Further, does this mean you accept the miracles that Josephus mentions?

No, of course you don’t. You are picking and choosing based on your religious beliefs, not because of a rational appraisal of the evidence.

@Calculon

I think really your ideas of historicity are completely out os sync with those of modern historians. If we were to accept your ideas of what could be considered historical then we would have to abandon much of our understanding of ancient history, and even a lot of modern history. If reliable accounts of events can only be written by eyewitnesses, then that rules out most historical sources as having any value. For your argument to make much sense you have to really define carefully by what standards you judge historicity, and what impact that has on our understanding of history. Simply denouncing things as non-historical because they don’t fit some arbitrary quality is not really much of an argument.

Most modern historians are Christians, so your criticism of being out of sync doesn’t hold much weight. Also, your appraisal of what I accept as history is misguided and clearly wrong since most historians would side with me in terms of every other miracle claim outside of the ones regarding Jesus. Do you deny this?

You criticism here is vague and amounts to handwaving. You’ve provided no examples and further, when the vague claims are compared to what I’ve said and what historians believe, they are incorrect. No historian that I’m aware of accepts the Vespasian miracles as true - certainly the majority do not.

@Calculon

Secondly I find your choice in particular of the miracles of Vespasian on which to hang your critique rather odd. The most obvious reason is that even if Vespasian did perform the miracles attributed to him, it doesn’t invalidate Christianity. So what if said I did believe that Vespasian performed miracles, then what? It is really a criticism without teeth.

If you’d reread my posts, you’ll notice that I’ve mentioned more than Vespasian - it’s just that the Vespasian miracle is the most convenient.

If you said that you did believe Vespasian then I’d say you are consistent and i wouldn’t have an issue with you.

I find it telling that you are putting this as hypothetical - the fact is that you don’t find Vespasian’s miracle very convincing, do you? What does that tell you about your position?

@Calculon

As well I think that in comparison with the NT the accounts of Vespasians miracles are not more certain historically. The reasons are:

1. First and foremost it is not entirely clear that Tacitus actually believes that the miracles took place. Following the analysis here shows that the account given by Tacitus is very sarcastic and it is not clear that it is intended to be taken seriously. So for instance Tacitus portrays Vespasian as a transparent schemer who only agrees to try the miracles when it becomes clear that he can blame any failures on the people themselves. The last line in the quotation, “Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood”, reveals that Tacitus may believe that the witnesses were paid off to say what they did. Saying that there is nothing to be gained now implies that there was something to be gained at the time of the account. Also if the witnesses were paid off they would of course want to continue the lie later so they are not exposed as being dishonest.

You quote the Triablogue, a group of conservative Christian presuppositionalists and you think there opinion is, what, convincing?

I’ve already addressed their criticism - it’s taken out of context - look at the verse after the one they quoted - the point of the passage demonstrates that Vespasian’s faith was strengthened:

"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. "

Not to mention the fact that Tacitus isn’t the only ancient source that mentions it. So let’s take the Triablogue at their word - Tacitus is now treating it as hostile, which is what Craig would count as an enemy attestation of an event!

@Calculon

Because of these features some Tacitus scholars believe that the account is not meant to be taken literally. This is in contrast with the gospels, which are obvisouly written to be taken as real historical descriptions within the style and conventions of ancient autobiography.

The triablogue is not the majority of scholars and I do not believe any of them are actual scholars.

Your source amounts to an argument from (bad and bias) authority.

Also, you are begging the question with regards to the Gospels - they do not bear the mark of real historical descriptions. They provide accounts that the ‘eyewitness’ would not have known (such as the Garden of Gethsemane, when the ‘witnesses’ were asleep, or the devil tempting Jesus, etc).

@Calculon

2. The accounts of the miracles of Vespasian were written 30-40 years after the fact, similar to the NT. So these accounts are not really more contemporary than the NT. Nor are the accounts eyewitness accounts.

My point was that they were not anonymous and that they were written by the historians at the time. This criticism is a strawman and if it has any weight, it weakens the Gospel case, since the Gospels were not written by historians and they are anonymous.

Also, Josephus did witness miracles (not Vespasian, mind you, Eleazar), so does this mean you accept that Eleazar’s miracles were genuine?

@Calculon

3. There is no evidence that people accepted these accounts as being historical. This is not the case with the gospels as the early church obviously considered them accurate.

Historians wrote about them and Josephus considered Vespasian to be a possible messiah…

Yet this doesn’t count as people accepting the miracle claims? By what standard?

@Calculon

4. While the miracles are recored by two people, Tacitus and Seutonius, it is not clear what their sources for the story is. Most likely both are quoting reports of the miracles sent back to Rome by Vespasian himself, and are therefore not independent accounts. The gospels on the other hand contain a number of source traditions (Mark, John, Q, L, M, passion narative, multiple appearance sources) and often are independent accounts of the life of Jesus.

This is ad-hoc, and ridiculous. Please provide some evidence for it.

As to the gospels - they are not independent.

@Calculon

5. Vespasian was a known propagandist, who had obvious political motives for fabricating the stories of miracles. The miracle stories follow the expected pattern of miracles accepted by the Romans and therefore could be easily made up. Jesus and the disciples on the other hand were not political figures, and therefore have no clear motive for fabricating the resurrection. The resurrection also contradicts Jewish expectations of the Messiah in several key areas and is therefore not easily made up. So for instance the common Jewish understanding of resurrection at the time was that the resurrection of all people would happen at the coming of God’s Kingdom. Jews at the time had no expectation of someone being resurrected before then. The common expectation of the Messiah was that the Messiah would be a great political leader who would re-instate to glory and centrality the nation of Judah. There was no expectation that the Messiah would save Israel by providing a final sacrifice for their sins through his death, much less that this would be for all people in every nation.

I’ve already provided an equal motive for Jesus in this thread. Yes, it’s ad-hoc, but so is this that you’ve put forth. Further, you are creating a strawman out of the Jews here - there was no one ‘jewish expectation’ of the messiah. There were dozens of Jewish messiah cults running around.

@Calculon

Overall it makes no difference to me theologically whether Vespasian performed miracles or not. The reason that I don’t believe that he did is that I think the quality of the evidence is not sufficient and that the quality of evidence is much worse than that for the resurrection.

If you say so. I think your hand is exposed though.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@rat_avatar

I typically do not respond to trite responses, especially from someone who has the capability to offer scholarly ones.
If you are to believe the gospels as presented in the common christian mythos, Jesus was speared by a roman soldier before being interred.
With your education you know this and by your response you are just being dismissive of my question for documentation.

From my reading of the gospels Mathew claims there was an earthquake, there was 3 hours of darkness and the saints were all raised from the dead and were known by others.

Pilate, after seeing all this still had to send a guard to watch the grave to make sure one one stole the body “lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead”

So Pilate, having an earthquake, 3 hours darkness and zombies all around town still thought that it was a hoax, a coma does not explain those claims.

I would still say any claim of supernatural events should have a very high bar.

That none of these events were recorded outside the gospels seems to infer them happening as being highly unlikely.

This kind of supernatural event requires a lot of evidence IMHO. No matter if that is in a religious text or a purported historical account.

I knew what you were referring to, I was just asking why you thought those (clearly fictional) details of the Gospels had any relevance to the yogis putting themselves into hibernate mode.

[Meatros]

Let’s clear this up a bit Calculon, what are your criteria that you use to determine if a miracle is historical?

Can you provide a few criteria? Say, ‘independent accounts’, something like that?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It’s a matter of objective fact that the evidence for Vespasian’s healing is better than the evidence for the resurrection simply because Vespasian has eyewitness testimony and independent corroboration while the resurrection has no evidence whatsoever - not a single thing. Historically, I am confident that Vespasian probably staged some kind of “healing” spectacle. By contrast, there is no evidence that anyone ever even made the claims about Jesus walking out of a tomb.

[Meatros]

@Calculon

First and foremost your accusation of “special pleading” on the part of Christians in accepting the gospel miracles is backwards. I think if there is any special pleading being done it is on the skeptic side in rejecting the historicity of the gospels. The simple fact is that if the gospels and other early NT writings presented Jesus as an entirely natural (as opposed to supernatural) person they would be accepted as historical largely without question. The only difficulty in accepting the gospels as historical is the fact that they record supernatural events, and many people have issues accepting the supernatural. Indeed the majority of NT scholars believe that the gospels and early Christian writings do have historical value, and generally accept the death, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and belief of the early Christians as being historical. Of course not all believe that the resurrection actually took place, and not all accept all four parts. But to argue that the NT writings are historically worthless is simply out of line with current scholarship on the issue.

You wrote this - I responded with the following:

@Meatros

Jesus is entirely natural?? Natural people can walk on water? Natural people are born of virgins? Are you serious?

I’m not arguing that the NT has absolutely no historical value - that’s a strawman. I think the accounts of Vespasian have historical value.

That said, I think neither are trustworthy enough to conclude that miracles have occurred. The entire point of this thread is related to this - the Gospels are worse evidence than what we have for Vespasian, yet no historian accepts Vespasian’s miracles as history.

When it comes to Jesus and the exact same miracle, conservative christian historians DO accept it as history. This doesn’t bother you though - instead you make the misleading claim that I view the Gospels as completely ahistorical as though there were simply no content within it that had any link to history.

I suppose it’s an easier claim to tackle than what I’m actually bringing up, so I can understand the appeal of attacking it.

I reread what you wrote and I realized that I missed a key word - “If”. My apologies for this.

As to the contention you made - I’m not entirely sure what to do with it - the majority of what we “know” about Jesus is supernatural or mixed with prophecies and the Old Testament. What’s left outside of that to form a historic core?

Not much. This was the conclusion of numerous scholars.

So I’m not even sure that your basic contention is correct - that Jesus sans miracles would be considered historical. That said, the gospels do provide some historical value, as I’ve repeatedly stated - just not as much as apologists would dupe people into believing.

As to the death, empty tomb, and post mortem appearances - those are considered ‘historical’ by Craig and other apologists.

The empty tomb, in particular, is dubious as it’s highly unlikely that Jesus would have had a tomb. The entire passion narrative is fraught with historical difficulties (why were thieves being crucified? Why would Jesus alone be put in Joseph of Aramathia’s tomb? etc, etc).

As to post mortem appearances - the only one that we can be certain of is Paul’s and that bares the marks of a mental phenomenon - but that’s not really what apologists consider a post mortem appearance.

Basically what you refer to as the historical core is either suspect (empty tomb) or not worth much historically (visions of Jesus).

[kanicbird]

@Voyager

ESP should be repeatable.

Why?

Ghosts in haunted houses should be also.

Again why?

Remember, even such random events such as meteorite strikes show up often enough to be confirmed. The effects of supernatural events on natural things would do also

You are making the error of requiring supernatural events to obey natural laws.

You are also making the error that many/most/all supernatural events are believed to be the interacting of beings thought to be superior to us and in control of our natural world, our natural laws and us. So you are expecting super-living beings to obey predictable natural laws and preform for us on demand? These beings are not our genies to control, but there to guide us to the realization that they, not us or our natural laws, are in control.

It is part of their mission for us to realize that they are in control and for us to trust in them. Things like ESP are gifts from them to play with but only if it is helpful in our guidance.

So no ESP, hauntings and the like will not follow natural laws and can’t be expected to.

I thought they all got wiped out in the flood, unless you accuse Noah or his wife of being so descended.

Gen 6 :4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward —when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Bold and underline mine - the Nephilum were also afterwards. The Nephilum were the sons of God sons (and presumably daughters). Did they even suffer the flood, or were they rescued by their parents? Either way it is clear that the Nephilum reappeared after the flood.

In any case, any inherent virtue Jesus would get from being God’s son is kind of wiped out by this example, isn’t it?

No it explains Jesus’ visit, the love of God and the freedom He wants for man kind. God loves man so much that He is willing to adopt anyone who requests it, this is the way that Jesus provides (and available in all societies and faiths - not exclusive to Christianity), free adoption as the son to the highest God. It allows those people to break the pattern of oppression that they would never have been able to on their own and achieve greatness surpassing the Nephilum as the also are now sons of God.

The gods/nephilum/man model is one that explains the social structure in today’s society, why some people can command positions of great power and other people can strive all their life and never get any headway. Some people are also at the ‘spiritual’ level of servants/slaves, where they are just treated differently as a oppressed class. The ancient wisdom has formed a societal model that works very well to explain what is observed today, much better then any modern or scientific model proposed. It may be a god in the gaps argument, but god in the gaps 1: is not a false argument, and 2 in this case the ancient wisdom is far superior in a working and practical sense to any other proposed model.

[kanicbird]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s a matter of objective fact that the evidence for Vespasian’s healing is better than the evidence for the resurrection simply because Vespasian has eyewitness testimony and independent corroboration while the resurrection has no evidence whatsoever - not a single thing. Historically, I am confident that Vespasian probably staged some kind of “healing” spectacle. By contrast, there is no evidence that anyone ever even made the claims about Jesus walking out of a tomb.

People today claim to have been visited by the risen Lord, you can google it, get many first and second accounts and you can even talk directly with some of those people, including myself

How does Vespasian compare?