What would you have done?

[iguanaman]

If you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so, or do nothing, ignore the information.

So then when some claim "there's no evidence" that Jesus did such things, this is an illogical position because it is clear the only evidence we could expect is some preserved written record.

Furthermore because the events were so shocking, a great effort would need to be devoted to ensuring this information is preserved, tremendous value would be attached to the preservation of such incredible information.

Now it is pretty obvious to me that because such huge significance would be attached to this information and written copies were the only way to preserve this for future generations, a practice of making meticulous copies would be strongly emphasized from the outset knowing that many copies would be inevitably lost due to their fragility.

In addition, due to the very obvious risk of the information being lost forever, as many copies as could be created would be created.

The above is a very reasonable expectation if and only if such incredible events were observed, that the events were true and did occur.

And what do we actually find when we explore this subject?

From wikipedia:

and



From a Bible information site:

View attachment 67300517

and

View attachment 67300518

These statistics, charts and numbers are easily verified facts.

The facts do indeed fit the expectation of what we'd find if a herculean effort were made by the initial observers to preserve the information with the technology available at the time, and this in turn strongly supports the belief that these events must have been true and were genuinely witnessed, no other explanation makes any real sense.

There are really no grounds for the atheists oft heard claim that there's no evidence Jesus existed, no evidence Jesus performed miracles, the data - when honestly analyzed in light of the prevailing technologies of the time - is exactly what one would expect to find.

Therefore - what is written in the New Testament is very very likely true.

The new testament was written between 50 and 100 AD. Everyone that witnessed these "miracles" was long dead then.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So do you claim there are no known facts about who wrote these texts? Was it just by chance they became documents used by Christians to promote their faith? It is a fact these are christian documents preserved by christian believers.

Can we perhaps answer questions in the same order they are asked?

You said a few posts ago:

You are purposely ignoring the fact that all theses texts were copied and compiled by believers in a certain religion. Why?

So I then asked:

David, what proof can you show me that "all theses texts were copied and compiled by believers in a certain religion"?

But did you answer me? no of course not, because you do not like providing honest answers to plain questions.

So what did you do? You ignored my question and asked more of your own questions, this is all you do, avoid answering questions honestly.

 

[devildavid]

Well I actually did speculate that the reason might have been that these events were staggering, eye witnesses might have been the source for the first written accounts, the astonishment experienced by these witnesses and initial chroniclers might have compelled them to get the information out to as many people as possible - this is after all what I would do.



David do you think if someone witnessed a staggering set of events and they were not an "objective historian" that they should recuse themselves from recounting their version of events?

You say some ridiculous things sometimes David.



David you cannot imply an account is false, a fabrication, of no informational value, simply because you personally disapprove of the writing style of that account!



You tell me.



Because they are not relevant to the argument I made.



There are many things we don't know, that does not prevent us from reasoning intelligently using those things that we do know.



We learn more every year, ever year additional snippets of information are unearthed.

Yes, you speculated, and based it on facts that don't back your speculation. You guessed; you did not reason intelligently. To reason intelligently would lead to the conclusion that stories of miracles were made up by Christians in order to promote their religion. Reasoning intelligently tells us that human beings have a long history of using mythical stories to back their beliefs in things that do not happen today and so there is no intelligent reason to think that they ever happened. I gave many intelligent reasons as to why someone would write these stories. You pretend to look for discussion and debate but once again reveal you are really looking for agreement.

 

[devildavid]

Can we perhaps answer questions in the same order they are asked?

You said a few posts ago:



So I then asked:



But did you answer me? no of course not, because you do not like providing honest answers to plain questions.

So what did you do? You ignored my question and asked more of your own questions, this is all you do, avoid answering questions honestly.

You have made no attempt to present any other known facts about the documents being discussed. Why?

 

[Daisy]

The new testament was written between 50 and 100 AD. Everyone that witnessed these "miracles" was long dead then.

Christ died in 33 CE...they were not all dead...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The new testament was written between 50 and 100 AD. Everyone that witnessed these "miracles" was long dead then.

Very sloppy, I mean how hard is it to make just a little effort to get information?

Peter and Paul are believed to have lived until around 66 AD, John is presumed to have died around 98 AD.

Now that's just the apostles, there may have been hundreds of people, teenagers, children who witnessed some of these astonishing events.

 

[devildavid]

Very sloppy, I mean how hard is it to make just a little effort to get information?

Peter and Paul are believed to have lived until around 66 AD, John is presumed to have died around 98 AD.

Now that's just the apostles, there may have been hundreds of people, teenagers, children who witnessed some of these astonishing events.

Do you present this as facts? What events are you talking about? Factual events?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, you speculated, and based it on facts that don't back your speculation. You guessed; you did not reason intelligently.

Which facts did I use that - in your opinion - are not consistent without my argument?

I do not respect your opinion David about my ability to reason, I am fully confident of what I said.

To reason intelligently would lead to the conclusion that stories of miracles were made up by Christians in order to promote their religion.

Only if you could prove miracles are impossible, only if you can prove people two thousand years ago lied about what they saw, since you cannot prove that you too must resort to speculation based on assumptions.

Reasoning intelligently tells us that human beings have a long history of using mythical stories to back their beliefs in things that do not happen today and so there is no intelligent reason to think that they ever happened.

No that's what it may tell you, intelligent reasoning tells me that human beings also have a long history of recording facts, chronicling actual events - this is referred to as "ancient history" David if you care to look, I doubt many historians would agree that all of our ancient historical sources are mythical.

I gave many intelligent reasons as to why someone would write these stories.

Yes, you speculated as I did, and you did not speculate intelligently but prejudicially.

You pretend to look for discussion and debate but once again reveal you are really looking for agreement.

Keep trying David, you will eventually realize that you've met your match here, your bluster and evasiveness won't help you when your up against me.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you present this as facts? What events are you talking about? Factual events?

Do you disagree with something I said? please make an effort to be clear David, if you dispute what I said then say so.

 

[devildavid]

Which facts did I use that - in your opinion - are not consistent without my argument?

I do not respect your opinion David about my ability to reason, I am fully confident of what I said.



Only if you could prove miracles are impossible, only if you can prove people two thousand years ago lied about what they saw, since you cannot prove that you too must resort to speculation based on assumptions.



No that's what it may tell you, intelligent reasoning tells me that human beings also have a long history of recording facts, chronicling actual events - this is referred to as "ancient history" David if you care to look, I doubt many historians would agree that all of our ancient historical sources are mythical.



Yes, you speculated as I did, and you did not speculate intelligently but prejudicially.



Keep trying David, you will eventually realize that you've met your match here, your bluster and evasiveness won't help you when your up against me.

Your facts are so sparse and bare bones they don't really back any conclusions as to the content of the documents. So all that can be done is to fill in the blanks with speculation, and I have already listed many other speculative possibilities based on the only facts you presented.

 

[devildavid]

Do you disagree with something I said? please make an effort to be clear David, if you dispute what I said then say so.

Did you present facts or not? If those are facts, they reveal who wrote the documents and what religion they believed in.

 

[calamity]

If you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so, or do nothing, ignore the information.

So then when some claim "there's no evidence" that Jesus did such things, this is an illogical position because it is clear the only evidence we could expect is some preserved written record.

Furthermore because the events were so shocking, a great effort would need to be devoted to ensuring this information is preserved, tremendous value would be attached to the preservation of such incredible information.

Now it is pretty obvious to me that because such huge significance would be attached to this information and written copies were the only way to preserve this for future generations, a practice of making meticulous copies would be strongly emphasized from the outset knowing that many copies would be inevitably lost due to their fragility.

In addition, due to the very obvious risk of the information being lost forever, as many copies as could be created would be created.

The above is a very reasonable expectation if and only if such incredible events were observed, that the events were true and did occur.

And what do we actually find when we explore this subject?

From wikipedia:

and



From a Bible information site:

View attachment 67300517

and

View attachment 67300518

These statistics, charts and numbers are easily verified facts.

The facts do indeed fit the expectation of what we'd find if a herculean effort were made by the initial observers to preserve the information with the technology available at the time, and this in turn strongly supports the belief that these events must have been true and were genuinely witnessed, no other explanation makes any real sense.

There are really no grounds for the atheists oft heard claim that there's no evidence Jesus existed, no evidence Jesus performed miracles, the data - when honestly analyzed in light of the prevailing technologies of the time - is exactly what one would expect to find.

Therefore - what is written in the New Testament is very very likely true.

Written record of fact or fiction. I vote fiction.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your facts are so sparse and bare bones they don't really back any conclusions as to the content of the documents. So all that can be done is to fill in the blanks with speculation, and I have already listed many other speculative possibilities based on the only facts you presented.

So all I gather really after all this is that you don't like what I posted - big deal.

 

[devildavid]

So all I gather really after all this is that you don't like what I posted - big deal.

No, has noting to do with whether or not I "like" your post. I question that the facts you presented do not lead to the conclusion that you come to. Those facts are insufficient to come to any reasonable intelligent cognizant conclusion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Did you present facts or not? If those are facts, they reveal who wrote the documents and what religion they believed in.

If you disagreed with something I said then have the common courtesy to come out and state in plain terms what I said that you disagree with David, no ifs, no waffle, no questions, no prevarication, no procrastination.

Quote what I wrote and state why you disagree with it, here just for you here's what I wrote that seems to have got you all flustered:

Peter and Paul are believed to have lived until around 66 AD, John is presumed to have died around 98 AD.
Now that's just the apostles, there may have been hundreds of people, teenagers, children who witnessed some of these astonishing events.

This is my position you either agree or disagree.

 

[devildavid]

If you disagreed with something I said then have the common courtesy to come out and state in plain terms what I said that you disagree with David, no ifs, no waffle, no questions, no prevarication, no procrastination.

Quote what I wrote and state why you disagree with it, here just for you here's what I wrote that seems to have got you all flustered:




This is my position you either agree or disagree.

I want to know if you are presenting facts.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, has noting to do with whether or not I "like" your post. I question that the facts you presented do not lead to the conclusion that you come to. Those facts are insufficient to come to any reasonable intelligent cognizant conclusion.

You've not questioned any facts, you've accused me to "ignoring facts" (and when pressed still won't reveal what these are).

You're all over the place, you don't even know what it is you disagree with.

 

[devildavid]

You've not questioned any facts, you've accused me to "ignoring facts" (and when pressed still won't reveal what these are).

You're all over the place, you don't even know what it is you disagree with.

Did you present facts?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Did you present facts?

Yes, see the two charts in my initial post, is it these that you now question or do you accept them?

 

[devildavid]

Very sloppy, I mean how hard is it to make just a little effort to get information?

Peter and Paul are believed to have lived until around 66 AD, John is presumed to have died around 98 AD.

Now that's just the apostles, there may have been hundreds of people, teenagers, children who witnessed some of these astonishing events.

Are these facts you are presenting? If so, what do they tell us about the source of the documents?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I want to know if you are presenting facts.

That's for you to establish David.

 

[devildavid]

Yes, see the two charts in my initial post, is it these that you now question or do you accept them?

You are losing track of what post I was responding to.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are these facts you are presenting? If so, what do they tell us about the source of the documents?

Do you accept the facts David, before I answer further questions can you tell me if you accept or reject the information represented in those two charts?

 

[devildavid]

That's for you to establish David.

No, it is not. You presented them as if they were facts. Are they? If so, what does it tell us about the documents?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, it is not. You presented them as if they were facts. Are they? If so, what does it tell us about the documents?

Yes they are facts.