Miracles

[Corwin111]

So what you are saying is the Gospel's were not written by eye witnesses? Do you have evidence for this assertion?

I would ask if you have evidence that they WERE?

All of the four canonical gospels are anonymous works. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not mentioned anywhere in their text. Of the four, only one contains an explicit claim to have been written by an eye witness to the events (who also does not name himself) but is ASSUMED by later church scholars to have been John the Apostle, I am sure you would agree that this is far from concrete evidence for anything.


The names are added to these works centuries after they were written.

As it stands, your question is no more valid than if I asked you what evidence YOU have that any religious text written in the form of a story is not an eye-witness account...

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I would ask if you have evidence that they WERE?

All of the four canonical gospels are anonymous works. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not mentioned anywhere in their text. Of the four, only one contains an explicit claim to have been written by an eye witness to the events (who also does not name himself) but is ASSUMED by later church scholars to have been John the Apostle, I am sure you would agree that this is far from concrete evidence for anything.


The names are added to these works centuries after they were written.

As it stands, your question is no more valid than if I asked you what evidence YOU have that any religious text written in the form of a story is not an eye-witness account...

even if they were eyewitness accounts, they were written AT LEAST 40 years after the supposed events.

as you pointed out, we dont know the authors. Hell, we dont have originals. The copies we DO have are 300 years removed from the originals. What had changed in the intervening 300 years? We know some of the early church fathers were fans of lying for god, which calls into question the integrity of the books as well.

Not only that but the four accounts differ. What were jesus's last words? only two of the four agree. Who was at the tomb when jesus resurrected? Different accounts there too. Only two of the gospels make any mention of the virgin birth. Hell, they even differ on what Jesus was supposed to be. and the timelines are different. the gospel of john seems to be written about a different story than the other three, and if one is problematic, why are the other three supposedly so reliable? they are all supposed to be the inspired word of a god, why do they differ at all?

[truthreality]

I would ask if you have evidence that they WERE?

All of the four canonical gospels are anonymous works. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not mentioned anywhere in their text. Of the four, only one contains an explicit claim to have been written by an eye witness to the events (who also does not name himself) but is ASSUMED by later church scholars to have been John the Apostle, I am sure you would agree that this is far from concrete evidence for anything.


The names are added to these works centuries after they were written.

As it stands, your question is no more valid than if I asked you what evidence YOU have that any religious text written in the form of a story is not an eye-witness account...

Scholars unanimously concede that Paul is the author of coronthians. What do you make of Paul's letter to the early church regarding the resurrection of Jesus and his appearance to other?:

"First and foremost, I handed on to you the facts which had been imparted to me: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised to life on the third day, according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and afterwards to the Twelve. Then he appeared to over 500 of our brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, and afterwards to all the apostles. In the end he appeared even to me." 1 Cor. 15:3-8

[iolo]

Scholars unanimously concede that Paul is the author of coronthians. What do you make of Paul's letter to the early church regarding the resurrection of Jesus and his appearance to other?:

"First and foremost, I handed on to you the facts which had been imparted to me: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised to life on the third day, according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and afterwards to the Twelve. Then he appeared to over 500 of our brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, and afterwards to all the apostles. In the end he appeared even to me." 1 Cor. 15:3-8

Clearly the first Christians (of whom Paul wasn't one) believed Jesus was around after his crucifixion, and the swift growth of the Church supports that fact. Logically he wasn't dead, I suppose. As to the other miracles, faith healing will still do wonders, stories do get inflated, and those who believe God is on earth have no problem believing He can alter natural laws as and when He fancies. As to 'eye witnesses', I find my own early memories are often manifestly false when I check with others. The notion of 'truth' seems to me naive and inhuman frankly.

[grandpa]

Clearly the first Christians (of whom Paul wasn't one) believed
Jesus was around after his crucifixion, and the swift growth
of the Church supports that fact.
Logically he wasn't dead, I suppose.

Found this online:
"For god so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that
whosoever would believe in him would believe in anything."

But really, if you think about it, people captivated by religion aren't entirely different from those who'd want an officer present at all times. One who's always quoting the bible is using it as a crutch so their "soul" can seem safe, just as one would have a false sense of perpetual safety if they were always vigilantly guarded.

Grandpa h.

[Corwin111]

Clearly the first Christians (of whom Paul wasn't one) believed Jesus was around after his crucifixion, and the swift growth of the Church supports that fact. Logically he wasn't dead, I suppose.

Oh quite clearly. I completely agree. People en-masse are widely known for their critical thinking and analytical skills, allowing them to see objective reality even through the thickest veils of deception and conflicting information, while NEVER allowing themselves to believe that things are true just because they want them to be true. :) Surely 2000 years ago, when word of mouth was pretty much the only means of getting the current news it may have been easier for rumors to start... luckily, as we said, people have an examplary track record with keepin'-it-real and discerning only the true rumors from the false and misrepresented ones.

Clearly there is almost zero chance that the rumors of jesus being alive after being crucified 2000 years ago may have been false. And clearly, nowadays, with all the marvelous means of mass information at our disposal combined with our aforementioned almost supernatural immunity to misinformation (which is clearly a divine gift), the chances of something similar happening are absolutely zero! :)

http://www.elvis-is-alive.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...theories.html#


Sorry, lost my train of thought...

[Cephus]

What are the atheist explanations for the miracles in the Bible? Particularly the miracles committed by Jesus. Are all of them fraud?

There's no evidence that any miracles have actually occurred. All you have are written claims that miracles occurred. Let us know when you have any actual evidence.

[iolo]

Double post - sorry.

[iolo]

Oh quite clearly. I completely agree. People en-masse are widely known for their critical thinking and analytical skills, allowing them to see objective reality even through the thickest veils of deception and conflicting information, while NEVER allowing themselves to believe that things are true just because they want them to be true. :) Surely 2000 years ago, when word of mouth was pretty much the only means of getting the current news it may have been easier for rumors to start... luckily, as we said, people have an examplary track record with keepin'-it-real and discerning only the true rumors from the false and misrepresented ones.

Clearly there is almost zero chance that the rumors of jesus being alive after being crucified 2000 years ago may have been false. And clearly, nowadays, with all the marvelous means of mass information at our disposal combined with our aforementioned almost supernatural immunity to misinformation (which is clearly a divine gift), the chances of something similar happening are absolutely zero! :)

http://www.elvis-is-alive.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...theories.html#


Sorry, lost my train of thought...

The way I see it, if Lenin had been arrested and executed after he arrived at the Finland Station, you might have had a few ex-Bolshevik nutters arguing he wasn't dead, but no-one would have taken any notice and and he'd have been minor history almost immediately. The bosses use public execution to demonstrate their power and the uselessness of opposing it, and it works. If it didn't work that time, something different happened, that's all. People don't normally get themselves killed for rumours, however hopeful. Martyrs are a strong argument, and they seem to have been around early enough to convince a lot of people very quickly.

[Corwin111]

The way I see it, if Lenin had been arrested and executed after he arrived at the Finland Station, you might have had a few ex-Bolshevik nutters arguing he wasn't dead, but no-one would have taken any notice and and he'd have been minor history almost immediately. The bosses use public execution to demonstrate their power and the uselessness of opposing it, and it works. If it didn't work that time, something different happened, that's all. People don't normally get themselves killed for rumours, however hopeful. Martyrs are a strong argument, and they seem to have been around early enough to convince a lot of people very quickly.

JFK's death was quite public. I can direct you to some theories of him being alive too if you want. :) Like it or not, people just WANT to believe this stuff.

[iolo]

JFK's death was quite public. I can direct you to some theories of him being alive too if you want. :) Like it or not, people just WANT to believe this stuff.

JFK's been gone long enough to produce plenty of martyrs if anyone really believed in him. What people want to believe is one thing, believing it to be real quite another.

[Dan74]

The way I see it, if Lenin had been arrested and executed after he arrived at the Finland Station, you might have had a few ex-Bolshevik nutters arguing he wasn't dead, but no-one would have taken any notice and and he'd have been minor history almost immediately. The bosses use public execution to demonstrate their power and the uselessness of opposing it, and it works. If it didn't work that time, something different happened, that's all. People don't normally get themselves killed for rumours, however hopeful. Martyrs are a strong argument, and they seem to have been around early enough to convince a lot of people very quickly.

It's funny because Lenin was deified after his death. Maybe Stalin and co. took a page from Christianity.