Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

The Marriage Feast of Cana - How many attended ? 100 ? 200 ? More ?
Not one eyewitness account or reference .

The Miracle of the loaves and fishers - how many were present ? 4000 ? 5000 ?
Not one eyewitness account or reference.

These two miracles in particular are interesting as there were substantial numbers of people present .These people were of all ages I presume , so they could well have been living years after the events.

Yet there is'nt one contempory account or any recollection afterword from any of these people. Such wondrous happenings, you would think , would have caused someone at the time to make some record of them.

marienbad wrote: »

Such wondrous happenings, you would think , would have caused someone at the time to make some record of them.

They did. That is why you are talking about them. Or are we back to excluding anything in the Bible because it in the Bible?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They did. That is why you are talking about them. Or are we back to excluding anything in the Bible because it in the Bible?

Of course Fanny, we may as well give the same credibility to The Iliad and The Odyssey otherwise .

marienbad wrote: »

Of course Fanny, we may as well give the same credibility to The Iliad and The Odyssey otherwise .

I'm not sure what your point is. Both of those were written as epic poetry and understood as such. They may have contained historical elements, but they weren't written as history. This is unlike the various miracle accounts that were recorded in the NT. These were written and understood to be accounts of actual historical events. So when the Gospel authors record the feeding of the multitudes, the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus they aren't playing with metaphor, they are claiming that these things actually happened as recorded. You don't have to believe them true, all you have to do is recognise the difference between the genres of epic poetry and history.

But all this is contrary to the point at which I entered. You asked for accounts of specific miracles, and you have them. In the case of the feeding of the multitudes you have 4 different accounts (with an additional recordings of a separate miracle in found in Matthew and Mark).

The problem in your case is not the number of accounts we do or don't have. It's that you don't accept miracles can happen and therefore no number of testimony will undermine your a priori naturalistic convictions. Just say this instead of demanding further accounts when we already know that if they were produced you would dismiss them.

[Deleted User]

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is. Both of those were written as epic poetry and understood as such. They may have contained historical elements, but they weren't written as history. This is unlike the various miracle accounts that were recorded in the NT. These were written and understood to be accounts of actual historical events. So when the Gospel authors record the feeding of the multitudes, the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus they aren't playing with metaphor, they are claiming that these things actually happened as recorded. You don't have to believe them true, all you have to do is recognise the difference between the genres of epic poetry and history.

This is of course when the bible is speaking in metaphor when it describes events that are ridiculous and are evidently untrue, such as a global flood that covered mountains and that creation happened in a nonsensical order we know isn't true. Right?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is. Both of those were written as epic poetry and understood as such. They may have contained historical elements, but they weren't written as history. This is unlike the various miracle accounts that were recorded in the NT. These were written and understood to be accounts of actual historical events. So when the Gospel authors record the feeding of the multitudes, the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus they aren't playing with metaphor, they are claiming that these things actually happened as recorded. You don't have to believe them true, all you have to do is recognise the difference between the genres of epic poetry and history.

But all this is contrary to the point at which I entered. You asked for accounts of specific miracles, and you have them. In the case of the feeding of the multitudes you have 4 different accounts (with an additional recordings of a separate miracle in found in Matthew and Mark).

The problem in your case is not the number of accounts we do or don't have. It's that you don't accept miracles can happen and therefore no number of testimony will undermine your a priori naturalistic convictions. Just say this instead of demanding further accounts when we already know that if they were produced you would dismiss them.

Because something is written as history does not make it history . And looking at the historicity of the two miracles I have referred to, witnessed by thousands and we don't have one independant item of corroboration.

As for my a priori naturalistic convictions - I don't see the relevance . I could just as easily say that because you are a believer you are predisposed to believe the miracles and no amount of evidence I produce to show you the water cannot be turned into wine or that a few loaves and fishes can be increased enough to feed a multitude will dissaude you.

So it is not just a question of demanding evidence, if you had such evidence you would produce it, would you not ?

It was put to me that that era was sparse of any evidence for most any event . I have shown that that is not the case , and I could go on posting links but I don't think it is required . There is plenty of evidence for any and all kinds of things. But for the key elements of the Bible, witnessed by thousands and over an extended period of time - than Jesus was a God and had the powers of a God- not a jot.

I take it you do not believe the Koran is the word of God, Why is that ? Why not accept the Koran as history in the same way as the Bible ?

King Mob wrote: »

This is of course when the bible is speaking in metaphor when it describes events that are ridiculous and are evidently untrue, such as a global flood that covered mountains and that creation happened in a nonsensical order we know isn't true. Right?

You realise that the Bible is a collection of books written over centuries by multiple authors employing numerous literary styles? The reason I ask is because your post seems to suggest that you aren't' aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_genre

Now if you are arguing that the Gospels were not intended to be understood as orderly historical accounts then show us your evidence. While you are at it, if you think that The Psalms, Song Of Solomon, Revelation and so forth somehow fit into the same literary genre then, again, show us why.

And if you want to talk about the various interpretations of Genesis (rather than just making closed statements about what you think Christians should be thinking) I suggest you take it to the creationism thread. Better still, research for yourself.

marienbad wrote: »

Because something is written as history does not make it history.

Actually Marien it does
It does not make it the past but history is not the past.

I take it you do not believe the Koran is the word of God, Why is that ? Why not accept the Koran as history in the same way as the Bible ?

The Koran is history as well.

It happens to contradict the Bible history.

And Muslims are much more fundamentalist in a literal sense about Scripture so things are not "the same" anyway.

[Deleted User]

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You realise that the Bible is a collection of books written over centuries by multiple authors employing numerous literary styles? The reason I ask is because your post seems to suggest that you aren't' aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_genre

Now if you are arguing that the Gospels were not intended to be understood as orderly historical accounts then show us your evidence. While you are at it, if you think that The Psalms, Song Of Solomon, Revelation and so forth somehow fit into the same literary genre then, again, show us why.

And if you want to talk about the various interpretations of Genesis (rather than just making closed statements about what you think Christians should be thinking) I suggest you take it to the creationism thread. Better still, research for yourself.

And that seems exactly like it's simply an excuse to use both the "it's a historical record" and the "it's a metaphor" arguments at the same time.
Cause I have had Christians claim that the Flood account is a historical account while all the impossible stuff in the creation account was a metaphor.

The difference between the genres seems to be pretty hazy and dependant on what is convenient.

marienbad wrote: »

Because something is written as history does not make it history .

Did you actually read my post? I didn't say that claiming something made it true. What I suggested was that even if you think the Gospels to be chock full of lies they are intended to be understood as orderly accounts of historical events. The same isn't true of epic poetry. Therefore your comparison between the Iliad and the Gospels is not valid.

marienbad wrote: »

And looking at the historicity of the two miracles I have referred to, witnessed by thousands and we don't have one independant item of corroboration.

What difference would it make to you if the unearthed a sheadload of these reports tomorrow? We both know that we would still be having the same conversation the day after.

marienbad wrote: »

As for my a priori naturalistic convictions - I don't see the relevance . I could just as easily say that because you are a believer you are predisposed to believe the miracles and no amount of evidence I produce to show you the water cannot be turned into wine or that a few loaves and fishes can be increased enough to feed a multitude will dissaude you.

You could say that, and you might be right. I'm happy to acknowledge it. That said, I don't think I need any evidence to show me that water can not be turned into wine - at least not by our hands. What I can't fathom is how you would go about providing evidence that God can do no such thing. Even conceptually I can't see why God, the greatest conceivable being, would somehow be incapable of changing matter A into matter B? What exactly would you base your evidence on?

Let's be clear. You are the one asking for more documentation about an event that no amount of papyri dug up from the earth would begin to shift you from your position. That is the point I am making, marienbad.

marienbad wrote: »

So it is not just a question of demanding evidence, if you had such evidence you would produce it, would you not ?

I don't think you are understanding me. No, it's not just a case of demanding evidence. It's a case of you demanding documentary evidence when you have decided that no amount of documentary evidence will do. If a certain document is reporting one of Jesus' miracles then they are reporting lies because miracles don't happen, right?

marienbad wrote: »

The Marriage Feast of Cana - How many attended ? 100 ? 200 ? More ?
Not one eyewitness account or reference .

the Marriage of roxanne pof Persia and Alexander the Great.

Not one extant eyewitness account.
I suppose the best you can get is an account by arrian 300 years later but he does not supply a guest list.

all he mentions is:
Anabasis Book 4b
CHAPTER XIX.ALEXANDER CAPTURES THE ROCK AND MARRIES ROXANA.

The wives and children of many important men were there captured, including those of Oxyartes. This chief had a daughter, a maiden of marriageable age, named Roxana, who was asserted by the men who served in Alexander’s army to have been the most beautiful of all the Asiatic women whom they had seen, with the single exception of the wife of Darius. They also say that no sooner did Alexander see her than he fell in love with her; but though he was in love with her, he refused to offer violence to her as a captive, and did not think it derogatory to his dignity to marry her. This conduct of Alexander I think worthy rather of praise than blame....
xyartes, hearing that his children were in the power of Alexander, and that he was treating his daughter Roxana with respect, took courage and came to him. He was held in honour at the king’s court, as was natural after such a piece of good fortune.

No guest list there either.

The Miracle of the loaves and fishers - how many were present ? 4000 ? 5000 ?
Not one eyewitness account or reference.

Siege of Tyre Book 2b

Alexander gave an amnesty to all those who fled for refuge into the temple of Heracles; among them being most of the Tyrian magistrates, including the king Azemilcus, as well as certain envoys from the Carthaginians, who had come to their mother-city to attend the sacrifice in honour of Heracles, according to an ancient custom. The rest of the prisoners were reduced to slavery; all the Tyrians and mercenary troops, to the number of about 30,000, who had been captured, being sold.

Okay the King of Tyre is mentioned but 400 Macedonians dies not one mentioned and not a single name of any other amnesty or of any of the 30,000 sold into slavery.

Yet there is'nt one contempory account or any recollection afterword from any of these people. Such wondrous happenings, you would think , would have caused someone at the time to make some record of them.

wouldnt you think someone was around at the time of the Sogdian rock or siege of Tyre. Indeed unlike Jesus, Alexander had court historians who apparently recorded things (and altered the history) but we don't have anything from them on this either as far as I know.

philologos

marienbad: You have to be one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You're looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than looking at the discussion impartially.

The Wedding of Cana was a local wedding in Galilee. Most people would not have been able to write, that might give you an indicator as to why it wasn't written about more prolifically.

The Crucifixion of Jesus however, was high profile, that's why many historians wrote about it, and it is why we have historical evidence outside of the New Testament for that event.

That's common sense.

King Mob wrote: »

The difference between the genres seems to be pretty hazy and dependant on what is convenient.

And you know this how? Through your vast research into Biblical literary genres?

There is quite a bit of debate into how we interpret certain passages in the Bible, but it's not like we are fumbling in the dark. I'd expect nothing less than disagreement when a couple of billion people get together to decide about anything subject - be it talk about morality, the nature of reality or whether Ronaldo is better than Messi.

[Deleted User]

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you know this how? Through your vast research into Biblical literary genres?

Observations of the arguments of Christians used on the forums.

King Mob wrote: »

Observations of the arguments of Christians used on the forums.

I see! An exhaustive search, so. (You know, I'd spare you the sarcasm if you didn't bring the attitude. ) OK, by way of introducing at least one alternative perspective (and I don't know if I agree with it myself because I'm still listening to it) comes from the always fascinating John Lennox.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did you actually read my post? I didn't say that claiming something made it true. What I suggested was that even if you think the Gospels to be chock full of lies they are intended to be understood as orderly accounts of historical events. The same isn't true of epic poetry. Therefore your comparison is not valid.

What difference would it make to you if the unearthed a sheadload of these reports tomorrow? We both know that we would still be having the same conversation.

You could say that, and you might be right. This is something I acknowledge. That said, I don't think I need any evidence to show me that water can not be turned into wine - at least not by me or you. What I can't fathom is how you would go about providing evidence that God can do no such thing, even conceptually. Why would God, the greatest conceivable being, be somehow unable to change matter A to matter B?

Let's be clear. You are the one asking for more documentation about an event that no amount of papyri dug up from the earth. That is the point I am making, marienbad.

I don't think you are understanding me. No, it's not just a case of demanding evidence. It's a of demanding documentary evidence when you have decided that no amount of documentary evidence will do. If a certain document is reporting one of Jesus' miracles then they are reporting lies because miracles don't happen, right? That is pretty much all I am saying.

Of course I read your post Fanny, forget The Iliad and The Odyssey then, the point I am making is that for a book to be history it must have corroboration . The Bible has none . And as I have said the events it describes say there were 1000's of witnesses and yet we don't have one independant account. I believe that because this it so it is called Faith and not history.

What relevance to the historicity of the bible is it whether or not I believe those shedload of reports ? I could just as well ask why you don't believe the Koran .

So why don't you believe the Koran ? When you can answer that question you might understand why I have difficulty believing the bible (as history).

Cossax

philologos wrote: »

marienbad: You have to be one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You're looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than looking at the discussion impartially.

The Wedding of Cana was a local wedding in Galilee. Most people would not have been able to write, that might give you an indicator as to why it wasn't written about more prolifically.

The Crucifixion of Jesus however, was high profile, that's why many historians wrote about it, and it is why we have historical evidence outside of the New Testament for that event.

That's common sense.

Eh? We do?

marienbad wrote: »

Of course I read your post Fanny, forget The Iliad and The Odyssey then, the point I am making is that for a book to be history it must have corroboration . The Bible has none . And as I have said the events it describes say there were 1000's of witnesses and yet we don't have one independant account. I believe that because this it so it is called Faith and not history.

Who made the rule that for a book (and why stop with books?) to be history it must be corroborated? Do you apply this to all areas of history and witness accounts?

As I've said already, the NT contains 4 accounts and another 2 for the feeding of the masses. This is multiple attestation. The reason you don't accept what is written as truth is because you think miracles impossible. And you know, that is just fine. What gets my goat is

a) You asking for document x, y and z because you have assumed that such documents must have been written (and continue to exist!) if the story is true.

b) We both know that if further accounts were produced tomorrow then it would not make a jot of difference to you argument. You would dismiss them just like you dismiss each and every supernatural account ever written.

marienbad wrote: »

What relevance to the historicity of the bible is it whether or not I believe those shedload of reports ? I could just as well ask why you don't believe the Koran .

So why don't you believe the Koran ? When you can answer that question you might understand why I have difficulty believing the bible (as history).

I've no idea what this has to do with this thread. I'm not one the Islam forum demanding evidence that I have already determined wont make any difference to my position.

marienbad wrote: »

Of course I read your post Fanny, forget The Iliad and The Odyssey then, the point I am making is that for a book to be history it must have corroboration . The Bible has none .

The Cyrus Cylinder, discovered in 1879, records Cyrus' overthrow of Babylon and his subsequent deliverance of the Jewish captives.

The Rosetta Stone, discovered in 1799 in Egypt by Napoleon's scientists, was written in three languages: hieroglyphics, demotic, and Greek. It unlocked the mystery of the hieroglyphics which have helped confirm the authenticity of the Bible.

The Moabite Stone discovered in 1868 at Dibon, Jordan, confirmed Moabite attacks on Israel as recorded in 2 Kings 1 and 3.

The Lachish Letters, discovered in 1932-1938, 24 miles north of Beersheba, described the attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem in 586 BC

Extra Biblical New testament history has been referenced earlier in this thread and on this forum.

And as I have said the events it describes say there were 1000's of witnesses and yet we don't have one independant account. I believe that because this it so it is called Faith and not history.

And so you have faith Alexander the great Married Roxanne . You just believe it because you have no actual witness accounts?

So why don't you believe the Koran ? When you can answer that question you might understand why I have difficulty believing the bible (as history).

But i assume he does believes the Koran as history; He believes Mohammed existed and lived in Medina and Mecca. He might not believe the Koran was dictated verbatim by an angel.

philologos wrote: »

marienbad: You have to be one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You're looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than looking at the discussion impartially.

The Wedding of Cana was a local wedding in Galilee. Most people would not have been able to write, that might give you an indicator as to why it wasn't written about more prolifically.

The Crucifixion of Jesus however, was high profile, that's why many historians wrote about it, and it is why we have historical evidence outside of the New Testament for that event.

That's common sense.

Confirmation bias ! You must be joking .

Cana, the loaves and fishes, the virgin birth, Lazarus , walking on water, curing the blind curing lepers , the resurrection and on and on , and all this over a period of years and there is not one independant item of corroboration, not one and you accuse me of bias.

Are you seriously suggesting that a man that feeds 4000 people with a few loaves and fishes would not have been high profile ? Such an event was bound to be recorded and discussed , by those believing in Jesus and opposed to Jesus , never mind the Romans .

As for the evidence for the Crucifixion outside the New Testament- what is that then ? The Josephus passages ? I have no issue at all with accepting that a man called Jesus existed and he was probably a good and a wise man and was crucified . I just have trouble accepting he was God .

Can I ask you Philologos why don't you believe the Koran ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77932308&postcount=3882

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76173084&postcount=1465

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76175697&postcount=1467

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76178230&postcount=1470

Cossax wrote: »

Eh? We do?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Who made the rule that for a book (and why stop with books?) to be history it must be corroborated? Do you apply this to all areas of history and witness accounts?

As I've said already, the NT contains 4 accounts and another 2 for the feeding of the masses. This is multiple attestation. The reason you don't accept what is written as truth is because you think miracles impossible. And you know, that is just fine. What gets my goat is

a) You asking for document x, y and z because you have assumed that such documents must have been written (and continue to exist!) if the story is true.

b) We both know that if further accounts were produced tomorrow then it would not make a jot of difference to you argument. You would dismiss them just like you dismiss each and every supernatural account ever written.

I've no idea what this has to do with this thread. I'm not one the Islam forum demanding evidence that I have already determined wont make any difference to my position.

All accepted history books are corroborated in some shape or form ,and even allowing for the different standards required between ancient and modern history there is none for the key events in the Bible - none. And yes I apply it to all areas of history and most particularly to witness accounts .

Surely it is not unreasonable to approach any book with the belief that miracles are impossible ? You seem to be saying that to do so is unreasonable ? Are I being unreasonable or are you ?

As it happens I did'nt always not believe , but in time the empiricle evidence was undeniable.

marienbad wrote: »

As it happens I did'nt always not believe , but in time the empiricle evidence was undeniable.

so what makes you believe in Socrates or Alexander the Great?

You dont have any writings about them from their own time either do you?

And you have been shown several extra biblical historians that referred to Jesus and you already accepted them. Now you are denying any evidence exists?

Sonics2k

ISAW wrote: »

so what makes you believe in Socrates or Alexander the Great?

You dont have any writings about them from their own time either do you?

Ugh, before this crap kicks off again.
These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible.

ISAW wrote: »

And you have been shown several extra biblical historians that referred to Jesus and you already accepted them. Now you are denying any evidence exists?

Marianbad has stated numerous times he accepts the likely existence of the man.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ugh, before this crap kicks off again.
These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.

Wrong!
http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive25.htm

Therefore, to conclude there is enough evidence to support the claim that Alexander the Great genuinely believed in his own divinity.

There is ample historical evidence of Alexander being portrayed as a god.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Marianbad has stated numerous times he accepts the likely existence of the man.

and then denied accepting it later by saying it is uncorroborated and not proper history.

Sonics2k

ISAW wrote: »

Wrong!
http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive25.htm

There is ample historical evidence of Alexander being portrayed as a god.

What part of "believed in his own divinity" makes you think I was wrong, or are there maybe some underlying reading problems here?

Thousands of people (especially Kings and Emperors) have believed they are. But my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men.
Alexander may have been treated as a 'God' by his subject, but that was not uncommon, and his following stopped quite quickly after his death.

You're comparing Apples and Oranges.

Sonics2k wrote: »

What part of "believed in his own divinity" makes you think I was wrong, or are there maybe some underlying reading problems here?

the part wher in reference to alexander the great you wrote of him as one of a group of
"men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff. "

Thousands of people (especially Kings and Emperors) have believed they are. But my point still stands.

your point that alexander the Great was " not portrayed a god or , or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff."

when clearly even for years after he died he WAS portrayed as a god. As several gods actually. Heracles and Athena and Zeus being some. In addition to believing it himself.