Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Is there any evidence for Jesus miracles?

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 6:31:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

There is no evidence of a supernatural man named Jesus or his miracles in any history books or in reality.
Believers in Jesus base their beliefs on the bible stories about a supernatural man.
Believers in Santa also base their belief on the stories about the man.

Stories exist. Whether people believe what they hear and read depends on how gullible they are.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed. But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 8:05:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Jesus told me personally that he did it.

Also, it is in a very very very book written over 1000 years ago.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 9:16:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Evidence? Yes, it's in some of the manuscripts.

Are they good evidence? No.

Are they reasonable evidence? No.

Are they sh*t evidence? Getting warmer.

Are they the worst possible evidence one could ask for miracles? Pretty much.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 10:27:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.
Not at all, and you know this, Anna. You simply can't bring yourself to accept a reality you don't like. You think you're special and that reality owes you miracles, and a savior, and an eternal life. No matter how hard you believe that, it's not going to happen. It's a fairytale, Anna.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought
That's where you're wrong. You didn't think and you don't think. You seem to be able to think when it comes to being able to date a newspaper. You can probably think when it comes to paying bills and assuring your checking account isn't over-drawn. But when it comes to religion, all of your thought processes come to a screeching halt. Suddenly, you suspend all logic, all reason, and all true cognition. Instead of realizing that the events mentioned in a document tell us that it was produced after those events, you want to believe it's God's special magic - even when it's found in an anonymous document, which wasn't written by the author claimed in the Bible.

So God can foretell of the future, but he can't tell the members of the council who wrote what, or even get them to agree on what is divine and what isn't.

the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved.
And of course, if we find it written in a document the council selected, then we have to believe everything it says. And if we find it in a document the council didn't select, then we can discount everything it says. Right?

The truth of the matter is that the "Gospel of John" contains information copied from two of the writings of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"), and those two documents weren't completed until 93CE. If the author had first-hand knowledge of such things, why did he have to copy from Flavius Josephus, who lacked first-hand knowledge? And why do we find greater accuracy, and more detail in the Josephus version, than in the anonymous manuscript later attributed to John? But we can forget about such evidence, because evidence doesn't matter to the "faithful". Faith is nothing but pretending that evidence doesn't matter. And in order to consider the evidence, one has to think. And thinking seriously gets in the way of faith-bound beliefs.

- "Gee, lookie here! It's a copy, of a copy, of a copy of a written manuscript. I wonder who wrote it. I'll say that John wrote it. DONE!"

A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.
No, Anna. You can't say what a reasonable person would conclude because you're not a reasonable person. A reasonable person reads a book which talks about wizards, witches, unicorns, giants, zombies and dragons, and doesn't need much more to realize that it's fiction. Only a person devoid of reason would conclude such a document to be true.

The Gospel of John shows less copying from The Gospel of Mark, than any of the canonical gospels. Christians seem to think that means that there aren't parallel verses in John, taken from Mark. That's not the case. There is still more than sufficient copying for a "reasonable person" (coming from someone who actually applies reason), to conclude that it most certainly wasn't written by anyone who witnessed the events.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians
Because they didn't write history. They wrote fiction. Sorry, Anna but if zombies had walked through the city and were seen by many, historians would have flocked to the story. As it is, only one gospel even mentions this. Again we have Philo of Alexandria, a real, live, actual historian who lived in that very region and in that very time. And in all of his writings which focus specifically on the religion and politics of that time, we find not one mention of Jesus, nor of ANY major event of the New Testament. It's fiction, Anna. You take fiction, mix in a few names of real people, real places, and perhaps an actual event or two, and bingo... the less intellectually capable will believe every word, even the witches, wizards, giants, dragons, zombies and unicorns.

even though they purport to report a history.
Not everyone who claims to tell the truth, actually tells the truth, Anna. As someone who I've caught in several lies, you know that first-hand.

Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.
And you were supposed to be telling me where Tacitus could possibly have confirmed the information... which you haven't done.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.
That's exactly what the facts show, and when those facts are plugged into Bayes Theorum, the output shows that Jesus cannot be objectively considered to be historical.

Once again, I should point out that I have no stake whatsoever in whether or not Jesus actually existed. Even if he did, that doesn't put him any closer to being divine. It leaves him as one among many lunatics of the day. I have no bias to apply to the argument. I'm simply reporting on the evidence as it stands.

And of course, along with the evidence against the existence of Jesus, as has been covered, there is the complete lack of evidence for Jesus where evidence should be found. It is simply impossible to rationally suggest that a historian like Philo of Alexandria, could possibly have completely overlooked Jesus if he had actually existed. And yet, we find not a single mention of Jesus, or anyone remotely like Jesus, within the 850,000+ extant words left by Philo of Alexandria, who lived there, in that time, and was the uncle to the king of the Jews, the prefect of Egypt, the Procurator of Judea, and could not have helped but know of Jesus had Jesus actually existed.

He knew about Pontias Pilate. He knew and recorded the friction between he and the Jews. But Jesus? Not a single word. The New Testament... nothing of any significance... because it's not history. It's fiction. And like a Spiderman comic, it has a little reality sprinkled in to appear more believable. It was the hopes and dreams of a persecuted people, who believed their God would someday rescue them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 11:13:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 10:27:26 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.
Not at all, and you know this, Anna. You simply can't bring yourself to accept a reality you don't like. You think you're special and that reality owes you miracles, and a savior, and an eternal life. No matter how hard you believe that, it's not going to happen. It's a fairytale, Anna.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought
That's where you're wrong. You didn't think and you don't think. You seem to be able to think when it comes to being able to date a newspaper. You can probably think when it comes to paying bills and assuring your checking account isn't over-drawn. But when it comes to religion, all of your thought processes come to a screeching halt. Suddenly, you suspend all logic, all reason, and all true cognition. Instead of realizing that the events mentioned in a document tell us that it was produced after those events, you want to believe it's God's special magic - even when it's found in an anonymous document, which wasn't written by the author claimed in the Bible.

So God can foretell of the future, but he can't tell the members of the council who wrote what, or even get them to agree on what is divine and what isn't.

the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved.
And of course, if we find it written in a document the council selected, then we have to believe everything it says. And if we find it in a document the council didn't select, then we can discount everything it says. Right?

The truth of the matter is that the "Gospel of John" contains information copied from two of the writings of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"), and those two documents weren't completed until 93CE. If the author had first-hand knowledge of such things, why did he have to copy from Flavius Josephus, who lacked first-hand knowledge? And why do we find greater accuracy, and more detail in the Josephus version, than in the anonymous manuscript later attributed to John? But we can forget about such evidence, because evidence doesn't matter to the "faithful". Faith is nothing but pretending that evidence doesn't matter. And in order to consider the evidence, one has to think. And thinking seriously gets in the way of faith-bound beliefs.

- "Gee, lookie here! It's a copy, of a copy, of a copy of a written manuscript. I wonder who wrote it. I'll say that John wrote it. DONE!"

A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.
No, Anna. You can't say what a reasonable person would conclude because you're not a reasonable person. A reasonable person reads a book which talks about wizards, witches, unicorns, giants, zombies and dragons, and doesn't need much more to realize that it's fiction. Only a person devoid of reason would conclude such a document to be true.

The Gospel of John shows less copying from The Gospel of Mark, than any of the canonical gospels. Christians seem to think that means that there aren't parallel verses in John, taken from Mark. That's not the case. There is still more than sufficient copying for a "reasonable person" (coming from someone who actually applies reason), to conclude that it most certainly wasn't written by anyone who witnessed the events.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians
Because they didn't write history. They wrote fiction. Sorry, Anna but if zombies had walked through the city and were seen by many, historians would have flocked to the story. As it is, only one gospel even mentions this. Again we have Philo of Alexandria, a real, live, actual historian who lived in that very region and in that very time. And in all of his writings which focus specifically on the religion and politics of that time, we find not one mention of Jesus, nor of ANY major event of the New Testament. It's fiction, Anna. You take fiction, mix in a few names of real people, real places, and perhaps an actual event or two, and bingo... the less intellectually capable will believe every word, even the witches, wizards, giants, dragons, zombies and unicorns.

even though they purport to report a history.
Not everyone who claims to tell the truth, actually tells the truth, Anna. As someone who I've caught in several lies, you know that first-hand.

Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.
And you were supposed to be telling me where Tacitus could possibly have confirmed the information... which you haven't done.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.
That's exactly what the facts show, and when those facts are plugged into Bayes Theorum, the output shows that Jesus cannot be objectively considered to be historical.

Once again, I should point out that I have no stake whatsoever in whether or not Jesus actually existed. Even if he did, that doesn't put him any closer to being divine. It leaves him as one among many lunatics of the day. I have no bias to apply to the argument. I'm simply reporting on the evidence as it stands.

And of course, along with the evidence against the existence of Jesus, as has been covered, there is the complete lack of evidence for Jesus where evidence should be found. It is simply impossible to rationally suggest that a historian like Philo of Alexandria, could possibly have completely overlooked Jesus if he had actually existed. And yet, we find not a single mention of Jesus, or anyone remotely like Jesus, within the 850,000+ extant words left by Philo of Alexandria, who lived there, in that time, and was the uncle to the king of the Jews, the prefect of Egypt, the Procurator of Judea, and could not have helped but know of Jesus had Jesus actually existed.

He knew about Pontias Pilate. He knew and recorded the friction between he and the Jews. But Jesus? Not a single word. The New Testament... nothing of any significance... because it's not history. It's fiction. And like a Spiderman comic, it has a little reality sprinkled in to appear more believable. It was the hopes and dreams of a persecuted people, who believed their God would someday rescue them.

"There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed."

Name them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 11:35:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 9:16:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Evidence? Yes, it's in some of the manuscripts.

Are they good evidence? No.

Are they reasonable evidence? No.

Are they sh*t evidence? Getting warmer.

Are they the worst possible evidence one could ask for miracles? Pretty much.

What is the difference between good evidence and bad evidence?
eabey
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 11:43:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Its like saying Homer's Odyssey (8th Century BC) is the proof for the existence of Poseidon
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 11:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 11:43:29 PM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Its like saying Homer's Odyssey (8th Century BC) is the proof for the existence of Poseidon.

Boy, that helped a lot.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
eabey
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 12:06:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 11:49:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:43:29 PM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Its like saying Homer's Odyssey (8th Century BC) is the proof for the existence of Poseidon.

Boy, that helped a lot.

" Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history"

Ancient Greeks actually did think the Trojan war was a historical fact., is it true ? Just because they believed it was historic. No one can prove it otherwise..
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 12:55:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 12:06:53 AM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:49:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:43:29 PM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Its like saying Homer's Odyssey (8th Century BC) is the proof for the existence of Poseidon.

Boy, that helped a lot.

" Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history"

Ancient Greeks actually did think the Trojan war was a historical fact., is it true ? Just because they believed it was historic. No one can prove it otherwise..

I was under the impression that something at least similar to the Trojan Horse actually did occur. Further, I was unaware that anyone who claimed to be an eye-witness wrote about it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
eabey
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 1:11:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 12:55:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:06:53 AM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:49:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:43:29 PM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Its like saying Homer's Odyssey (8th Century BC) is the proof for the existence of Poseidon.

Boy, that helped a lot.

" Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history"

Ancient Greeks actually did think the Trojan war was a historical fact., is it true ? Just because they believed it was historic. No one can prove it otherwise..

I was under the impression that something at least similar to the Trojan Horse actually did occur. Further, I was unaware that anyone who claimed to be an eye-witness wrote about it.

yeah it could have happened, my point being which parts of it could have happened. Do we base it on the writings itself or think logically ? Surely you logically cant say the whole thing happened because the return journey of Odysseus as entertaining as it is has absurdities.
Not sure but are there eye witness writings about the miracles Jesus supposed to have performed ?
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 1:14:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 1:11:16 AM, eabey wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:55:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:06:53 AM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:49:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:43:29 PM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Its like saying Homer's Odyssey (8th Century BC) is the proof for the existence of Poseidon.

Boy, that helped a lot.

" Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history"

Ancient Greeks actually did think the Trojan war was a historical fact., is it true ? Just because they believed it was historic. No one can prove it otherwise..

I was under the impression that something at least similar to the Trojan Horse actually did occur. Further, I was unaware that anyone who claimed to be an eye-witness wrote about it.

yeah it could have happened, my point being which parts of it could have happened. Do we base it on the writings itself or think logically ? Surely you logically cant say the whole thing happened because the return journey of Odysseus as entertaining as it is has absurdities.
Not sure but are there eye witness writings about the miracles Jesus supposed to have performed ?

I say, "Yes". Multiple ones. Skeptics have to say, "No".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
eabey
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 1:35:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 1:14:47 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/14/2014 1:11:16 AM, eabey wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:55:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:06:53 AM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:49:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 11:43:29 PM, eabey wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:11:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:21:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I want to know if there are and if you know of any, I would appreciate it if you gave me sources. I'm thinking of writing a book on the Bible.

Not a bit. Before looking for evidence of the miracles, you should assure that you have evidence for Jesus himself. Though it's still a minority view that Jesus is purely a myth, there isn't sufficient evidence to consider him more than a myth.

The evidence is almost wholly in favor of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character.

There are five hearsay accounts from historians. None of them claim to have met him, and all five lived after the time it is said Jesus existed.

That's singularly odd. I thought the Gospel according to John identified the author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not loves - but loved. A reasonable person might conclude that if Jesus has a special affection for the author of the Gospel of John, then Jesus might have at least met him. And if Jesus met him, then Jesus was a real person.

But no historian of any time claims to have met Jesus, seen Jesus, or even met anyone who saw or met Jesus. And among the writings of the historians who did live in that time and region, not a single one mentions him... at all.

Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history. Tacitus, of course, makes the reference - and you were supposed to be explaining how you knew as a certainty that Tacitus received his information from, of all places, the gossip of Christians. Christianity was still a minor group which attracted little interest until the burning of Rome.

So no, there is no evidence of any miracles, and no more evidence for Jesus than we have for Zeus or Mithra.

That's a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Its like saying Homer's Odyssey (8th Century BC) is the proof for the existence of Poseidon.

Boy, that helped a lot.

" Of course, you are eliminating the gospel writers as historians, even though they purport to report a history"

Ancient Greeks actually did think the Trojan war was a historical fact., is it true ? Just because they believed it was historic. No one can prove it otherwise..

I was under the impression that something at least similar to the Trojan Horse actually did occur. Further, I was unaware that anyone who claimed to be an eye-witness wrote about it.

yeah it could have happened, my point being which parts of it could have happened. Do we base it on the writings itself or think logically ? Surely you logically cant say the whole thing happened because the return journey of Odysseus as entertaining as it is has absurdities.
Not sure but are there eye witness writings about the miracles Jesus supposed to have performed ?

I say, "Yes". Multiple ones. Skeptics have to say, "No".

Pardon my ignorance, but I was under the impression that whatever written accounts were based on eye witness accounts rather than written by the eye witnesses themselves.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 10:58:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 4:17:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Well, Thallus wrote about the sky turning dark on the day Jesus was crucified.

He also wrote about Cronus.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 4:16:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 10:58:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:17:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Well, Thallus wrote about the sky turning dark on the day Jesus was crucified.

He also wrote about Cronus.

Right, but Jesus is historically likely to have been a real person who was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Therefore it's likely that this was a genuine account.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 4:24:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 4:16:13 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/14/2014 10:58:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:17:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Well, Thallus wrote about the sky turning dark on the day Jesus was crucified.

He also wrote about Cronus.

Right, but Jesus is historically likely to have been a real person who was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Therefore it's likely that this was a genuine account.

And you can show that Thallus even mentioned Christ?
On what evidence do you suggest that Jesus was likely to be a real person? The fact that no historian ever meet him, saw him, or even met anyone who knew him? Likelihood is based on credible evidence. And when it comes to Jesus, it seems there is nothing more than hearsay.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 5:40:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 4:24:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/15/2014 4:16:13 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/14/2014 10:58:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:17:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Well, Thallus wrote about the sky turning dark on the day Jesus was crucified.

He also wrote about Cronus.

Right, but Jesus is historically likely to have been a real person who was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Therefore it's likely that this was a genuine account.

And you can show that Thallus even mentioned Christ?
On what evidence do you suggest that Jesus was likely to be a real person?

On the evidence of logic. Logically, it makes absolutely no sense for historians who hated Christianity and Christians (Tacitus refers to Christianity as a "wicked superstition") to simply go along with a myth about Christianity's origin.

The fact that no historian ever meet him, saw him, or even met anyone who knew him?

Why does a historian have to meet someone to write history about a person? Less evidence is accepted for huge numbers of other people who dotted the landscape of antiquity. I do not think you understand how historians assess what is historical.

Likelihood is based on credible evidence.

Right, we have as much credible evidence for Jesus as any other figure of antiquity. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar.

And when it comes to Jesus, it seems there is nothing more than hearsay.

That depends how you define "hearsay",
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 11:54:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 4:17:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Well, Thallus wrote about the sky turning dark on the day Jesus was crucified.

Let's see what a period scholar has to say about this...
"It is commonly claimed that a chronologer named Thallus, writing shortly after 52CE, mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus and the noontime darkness surrounding it (which reportedly eclipsed the whole world for three hours), and attempted to explain it as an ordinary solar eclipse. But this is not a credible interpretation of the evidence. A stronger case can be made that we actually have a direct quotation of what Thallus said, and it does not mention Jesus."

Sorry, try again.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 12:54:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 5:40:16 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/15/2014 4:24:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/15/2014 4:16:13 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/14/2014 10:58:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:17:07 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Well, Thallus wrote about the sky turning dark on the day Jesus was crucified.

He also wrote about Cronus.

Right, but Jesus is historically likely to have been a real person who was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Therefore it's likely that this was a genuine account.

And you can show that Thallus even mentioned Christ?
On what evidence do you suggest that Jesus was likely to be a real person?

On the evidence of logic. Logically, it makes absolutely no sense for historians who hated Christianity and Christians (Tacitus refers to Christianity as a "wicked superstition") to simply go along with a myth about Christianity's origin.
I assume you've read the actual entry? What does he called Pilate? He says he was one of the Roman "procurators", right? Pilate was a "Prefect" not a "procurator", though Christian tradition held that he was a "procurator", which indicates that Tacitus was repeating popular Christian hearsay oral tradition, not speaking from an source of confirmation. And while one could perhaps dismiss that, he also didn't call him "Jesus" or "Jesus, son of Joseph" or anything else befitting a confirmation record. He calls him "Christus" (Christ), again showing that the information he is echoing is simply Christian oral tradition, and not any kind of confirming historical record. The Romans would no more have logged his execution as the crucifixion of "Christus", than they would have written it as the crucifixion of "God".

The fact that no historian ever meet him, saw him, or even met anyone who knew him?

Why does a historian have to meet someone to write history about a person? Less evidence is accepted for huge numbers of other people who dotted the landscape of antiquity. I do not think you understand how historians assess what is historical.
You're not being honest. I never suggested that a historian had to meet anyone. I put out several options. Let's first remember that we're talking about a time and place were there were multiple historians - more than 2-dozen that we know of. And yet none of them appear to have ever met Jesus, (keep reading) ... saw Jesus ... met anyone who knew Jesus ... or even met anyone who claimed to have seen Jesus. Add that to the fact that there is no indication that anyone wrote even one word about him while he was alive (if he ever existed), and Jesus becomes absolutely invisible to everyone of any credibility for the entire time he supposedly lived. Do you start to see the problem now?

Likelihood is based on credible evidence.

Right, we have as much credible evidence for Jesus as any other figure of antiquity. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar.
No sir, I'm afraid you are the liar. For instance, let's look at Caesar since so many Christians like to make that comparison.
- We have a bust of Caesar, carved during his own lifetime, which was found near Tusculum.
- We have his image on a coin (a denarius), dated Feb/Mar 44 (BC)
- We have a complete history of his life.
- We have words written by Caesar himself.

When it comes to Jesus, we have no likenesses, no description, nothing contemporary showing any dates, what amounts to (supposed) narration of only a few weeks of his life, nothing written by him, and nothing written about him during the time he is said to have lived.

Do you really think that's "as much credible evidence" as we have for Caesar, or Pilate, or Paul? We have no more evidence for Jesus, than we have for Zeus or Mithra. That's not just rhetoric. That's simply the truth.

And when it comes to Jesus, it seems there is nothing more than hearsay.

That depends how you define "hearsay",
I'm sorry, are you going to attempt to start creating new definitions for standardized words as part of your attempt at evading the reality? Hearsay is already clearly defined. None of the historical entries mentioning Jesus are anything but a "well I heard" kind of reference... "hearsay".
------
hear-say
noun

information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
------
There is nothing more gelatinous than a Christian desperate to salvage their fantasy world.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 1:20:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There isn't any evidence of Jesus' miracles. All we have are stories - stories that were not written by any contemporaries of Jesus, only anecdotal accounts written down decades after the supposed time of Jesus.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 1:57:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 1:20:08 AM, Cryo wrote:
There isn't any evidence of Jesus' miracles. All we have are stories - stories that were not written by any contemporaries of Jesus, only anecdotal accounts written down decades after the supposed time of Jesus.

...which sometimes mimic the proclaimed miracles of older pagan gods.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire