Is There a Scientific Explanation for "Miracles?"

Rotation Advertisements

We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.

If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.

Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk

If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Pages:
1
2
3
4

Is There a Scientific Explanation for "Miracles?"
Tweet Topic Started: Nov 2 2016, 01:24 PM (2,484 Views)
lazerbem	Nov 8 2016, 10:40 PM Post #46
Posts: 10,662 Group: Forum Moderator Member #10,435 Joined: November 1, 2013 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Asura's Wrath(it counts) What Browser do you use? Google Chrome	OFG Nov 8 2016, 05:47 PM Quote: The skeptics position is that he was real, preached, and then died. It requires far less of a convoluted story than for Paul to just make him up for some reason. I agree. It could be either that or what I said. Both are skeptical positions to take. People make things up all the time. cough Mormonism cough No, saying he isn't real is hardly the skeptic position when there is consensus among historians that he did in fact exist. One might as well say Hannibal didn't exist and was actually an amalgamation character made up by the Romans to excuse their difficulty against Carthrage. Sure, it's technically being skeptical, but it's also bordering on conspiracy theory levels of avoiding Occam's razor in order to make it work.
	Crazy cat cults in the woods


+ Sandy Shore	Nov 9 2016, 08:52 AM Post #47
Posts: 1,860 Group: Elite Member Member #12,337 Joined: May 18, 2015	I'm bored, so: Lazerbem Alexander has more physical evidence due to more influence on the world, and yet no contemporary writings have been found on him, just referenced in other writings. Alexander is a bad example for it though, Hannibal works better for it. You note Alexander is a bad comparison, and yet you still say "and yet", as if that's not to be expected, and it somehow deters from his obvious existence—you're going to have a far harder time explaining why there's no evidence for him, or even why all that's written of him is somehow incorrect, than explaining why there is or how it fits with his historical footprint—while somehow working in favour of Jesus'. Also, this "contemporary" business is a little misleading. They're reproductions, Christian dominated at that, and might really end up being no more valuable than a different text that simply sources from earlier ones - a la Alexander. That's not at all to say valueless - about the same value; the best we've got. The extant copies of these writings also opening up the rabbit hole for this χρηστιανος business I only just found out about this morning - though I think I once had a near miss with it. "The Good Ones" seemingly being evidence for different movements fusing in to one, with Isu Chrestos as something of a possible forerunner to Jesus Christ. Still, it's a hole I'll better explore some other time. Quote: This is the same man who vehemently opposed hearsay and had access to Roman records in the provinces, not to mention would have been able to speak with Josephus. Tacitus has the means, the fact that he doesn't cite them is a very small nitpick when citing wasn't something that was done incredibly often in ancient writing. Tacitus had the means if there were evidence for him to be aware of; if he were so interested in digging all for the sake of a mere comment - the point of the writing being about Nero, and the Christians noted to this end, with a note of their origin being a mere aside; if he were even aware of or inclined to speak with Josephus - if Josephus himself even really did have any knowledge of or words for Christ. It's kind of a big if, you yourself knowing how shaky the Josephus writings appear to be. Origen letting us know it was, at least partially, present as early as the third century. If Tacitus were interested in or aware of the actual person in question, why no mention Christ's actual name that would have undoubtedly appeared in whatever document he was supposedly looking at? He appears to take Christ at face value: the person from which the Christians get their name. Not the historical man, who should have no connection to the word "Christ" in any documentation about his execution. Quote: There are other possible reasons for it. Speculation that attempts to give more credence to some other speculation? It's not absurd to believe that Tacitus knew of a historical Christ should there have been one to know of, the problem is that he simply makes no indication of knowing it any more than we know that "Christ", from whom the Christians take their name, was executed by order of Pontius Pilate. We "know" this without Tacitus, and quite possibly in the exact same way that he does. That is/was the known history of the Christian figurehead - the less important point in a minor aside when discussing Nero's history. Quote: No, I'm saying that expecting more proof on Jesus's existence than some brief mentions is applying an incredibly high burden of proof when even Roman governors and famous conquerors suffer from similar vagueness. You also have to remember that Jesus also reeks of a wish fulfillment mythological entity for a superstitious, at times desperate, people. Old text that mentions someone's job title or impressive deeds they achieved is simply more likely to be taken as historical than the mention of a figurehead, in relation to a group, that's also supposed to defy all logic. Admittedly, Tacitus does mention him as interacting with an actual human being, but so too does Mark in his epic. The mythology itself has been steeped in a real time and place. Quote: It requires far less of a convoluted story than for Paul to just make him up for some reason. But even if not a historical figure, which he doesn't even appear that interested in, Saul most certainly did (alone?) invent a messiah. To go one step further and say that a historical Jesus never existed is a genuine and acceptable possibility, even if slightly less likely It would seem he was either inspired by news of a historical Jesus, and attributed his own visions and beliefs to him; his vision of a messiah was conflated with a historical Jesus by someone else at some point; or a historical Jesus also never existed, and the fiction of an Earthly messiah—in the same way Heracles, Perseus (also sons of gods and mortals), Abraham, Moses, or Gilgamesh were fictional and yet viewed as historical god-interacters or movement founders—was eventually conflated with Paul's more ethereal messiah. Then there's also the question of whether Paul himself was a lone writer, or whether "his" writings are the development of the idea by numerous people holding Gnostic beliefs, that eventually got mingled with a group following some sort of Earthly messiah. When we consider that the Gospel of Mark is almost certainly an epic set to the tune of The Odyssey, and that there is a precedent in Jewish scripture and Hellenistic deities/philosophies for virtually everything attested to Jesus, that character could very well be the basis for the historical Jesus, and not the other way around. It's really something of a romantic view that sees me favouring the real execution, and his few followers and their imagination running wild for love of him and/or their own salvation - which then inspires a singular Paul, and eventually leads to the (even more likely to be) singular Mark, also making perfectly good sense chronologically, with Tacitus and Josephus possibly lending credence to this, though they're not exactly necessary or definitive to this end. It's a little more solid than the alternative mentioned - but not much more. Not much more at all.



~~Doggo Champion 2k17~~	Nov 9 2016, 06:09 PM Post #48
Posts: 7,931 Group: GTFO Member #6,380 Joined: June 20, 2011 Country United States Favourite Anime here comes What Browser do you use? o shit waddup! Favourite Manga dat boi	lazerbem Nov 8 2016, 10:40 PM OFG Nov 8 2016, 05:47 PM Quote: The skeptics position is that he was real, preached, and then died. It requires far less of a convoluted story than for Paul to just make him up for some reason. I agree. It could be either that or what I said. Both are skeptical positions to take. People make things up all the time. cough Mormonism cough No, saying he isn't real is hardly the skeptic position when there is consensus among historians that he did in fact exist. One might as well say Hannibal didn't exist and was actually an amalgamation character made up by the Romans to excuse their difficulty against Carthrage. Sure, it's technically being skeptical, but it's also bordering on conspiracy theory levels of avoiding Occam's razor in order to make it work. You're right. It's much more plausible to believe that a man named Jesus existed, but that he wasn't divine. To claim that he didn't exist at all is less likely, but it's still a skeptical position to take in regards to the topic at hand, which is miracles and religion. I digress though. It isn't really that relevant. I believe that it's very possible for Jesus to have existed; it just isn't that important to me. Especially considering there is no possible way he was a divine figure unless magic existed in late B.C. We certainly haven't seen any of that since then. But since historians claim he existed, I'll buy it. There is no "evidence" as far as a tomb or Noah's ark are concerned though, that's for sure. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Nov 9 2016, 06:12 PM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4