David Hume's criteria for accepting stories of miracles applied to religious miracles

[PointOfViewGun]

I find it amusing how people attempting to disprove miracles from God completely avoid modern day miracles

Such as?

[conon394]

I find it amusing how people attempting to disprove miracles from God completely avoid modern day miracles

An example?

So far I only point out that nothing presented so far amounts to inexplicable evidence of something that must be miracles and I have secondary doubts that they only occur to/for evangelical born again Christians.

[basics]

Sir Adrian,

Even if Jesus stood before them as He will do both POVG and C394 will still not accept that it really is Jesus. You see to them man does everything and so doesn't need God, why? Because the sin in them won't allow it and so they will argue until they are blue in the face that miracles don't exist no matter how many one relates to them. The thing is that when they both die, they will find out but of course it will be too late unless that wonderful miracle of rebirth falls on them.

[conon394]

Sir Adrian,

Even if Jesus stood before them as He will do both POVG and C394 will still not accept that it really is Jesus. You see to them man does everything and so doesn't need God, why? Because the sin in them won't allow it and so they will argue until they are blue in the face that miracles don't exist no matter how many one relates to them. The thing is that when they both die, they will find out but of course it will be too late unless that wonderful miracle of rebirth falls on them.

On the first so far you have presented no story such as that basics.

"You see to them man does everything and so doesn't need God, why? Because the sin in them won't allow it and so they will argue until they are blue in the face that miracles don't exist no matter how many one relates to them"

You have presented vague improbable events that you believe to miracles because they happened to the right sort of believer. But you are certain that other similar improbable events were they to happen to say a Buddhists would just improbable events. That is not a compelling case.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sir Adrian,

Even if Jesus stood before them as He will do both POVG and C394 will still not accept that it really is Jesus. You see to them man does everything and so doesn't need God, why? Because the sin in them won't allow it and so they will argue until they are blue in the face that miracles don't exist no matter how many one relates to them. The thing is that when they both die, they will find out but of course it will be too late unless that wonderful miracle of rebirth falls on them.

I'm not sure if Jesus will be all loving towards people that put words in his mouth.

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

And what words would they be?

[conon394]

PointOfViewGun,

And what words would they be?

Can't answer for POVG or his intent. But realistically all of them since he failed to write anything down and the earliest credible source for Jesus never even met him in person.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,
And what words would they be?

The words related to which cases you consider to be miracles and which cases you don't. You are passing judgment on Jesus' actions or inactions.

[basics]

The words related to which cases you consider to be miracles and which cases you don't. You are passing judgment on Jesus' actions or inactions.

PointOfViewGun,

How am I passing judgement on anything Jesus said or did?

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

How am I passing judgement on anything Jesus said or did?

I'm not sure what you need me to tell you when you quote the answer to your question...

[conon394]

anything Jesus said

What others say he said quite a bit after he may have said it.

[basics]

The first letters telling the new churches about the words and sayings of Jesus went out from Jerusalem from men who had been with Him hearing and witnessing to these times. This began only some days after He sent the Spirit upon them at Pentecost and as the first believers were mostly Jews these letters would have been written in Aramaic or Hebrew, why? Because these believing Jews still met in the synagogue and would not have spoken Greek there. If course they were put out of that worship place and resorted to house churches where Gentile converts were accepted and had to get translations in their own tongues. We saw this at Pentecost when those disciples spoke in their dialects or languages and so that continued and does so to this day. So, whether Aramaic or Greek or any other dialect, the words of Jesus were scrupulously recorded making the New Testament as we now have it, His words and deeds just as they happened and indeed verified by the Old Testament prophecies. Paul and James, Jesus' brother, both saw Him by way of vision and many even today experience the same.

[conon394]

That first part is a nice just so story to tell yourself but it more or less no basis in a verifiable fact. Paul indeed is the earliest source and he never met Jesus. That his visons start eliminating or altering the law does rather raise questions about what he really knew of what Jesus taught.

The first letters telling the new churches about the words and sayings of Jesus went out from Jerusalem from men who had been with Him hearing and witnessing to these times.

You have a rather exited view of both ancient literacy and the power of human recollection. You think people were scripting down notes while Jesus talked?

[basics]

conon394,

Apart from Paul's mindset change on the Damascus road, the men with whom he was cared for just happened to be men that knew Jesus. As for Luke, he investigated what he had heard by visiting and talking with many who had been with Jesus and found their recollections to be verified. If they could send letters out to these infant churches that clearly shows how capable they were as regards their literacy.

[conon394]

As for Luke, he investigated what he had heard by visiting and talking with many who had been with Jesus and found their recollections to be verified. If they could send letters out to these infant churches that clearly shows how capable they were as regards their literacy.

50 - 80 or years after the events and after the sack of Jerusalem. I agree the authors of the Gospels were literate and did send letters. But sans any particular evidence I question any trove of actual source material to reference vs oral tradition and amalgamation of saying and previous proto versions with largely created conversations. Also note Galatians 1 Paul rather is not a big fan of such traditions.

[basics]

conon394,

Hardly 50-80 years after for if we accept that John's vision was the last of these writings that would make him well into his hundreds which is highly unlikely. Herod died when Jesus was two years old or more, around 4-6 BC, meaning that The death and resurrection of Jesus would have been about forty when He was crucified. After His ascension some forty days later occurred the events of Pentecost where many thousands were converted and so when they returned to their homes the letters would begin to arrive. Concerning the ages of the disciples I would imagine them at around 30-40 with John perhaps the youngest. By the time Paul got to Jerusalem some were dead and the others quite aged, probably around 40-50 years old and still sending letters to the new churches quite well established by then. Paul's letter to the Galatian church was to warn them about false preachers especially about the circumcision people who insisted that members had to be circumcised.

[conon394]

if we accept that John's vision was the last of these writings that would make him well into his hundreds which is highly unlikely

Err I accept John post dates the others. But the ideal it was written by an eyewitness buddy of Jesus is erroneous. Which one do think it is anyway? It worth noting (but doing this by memory) that Ignatius seems to know of the Synoptic Gospels but not there names and not John (contra he knows the names of all Paul's letters). I don't really think the naming conventions settle until after Marcionism was suppressed (or given the era more accurately shouted down). Which would have been a short Luke and 10 Letters of Paul and no OT (you might have liked it basics you get your personal savior, but you lack the jerk god of the OT you have to keep defending) In any case Marcion created the first NT - sometimes being first does win. I wanted to say Clement also seems to only quote the text of the synoptics not there 'names' but again not sure on that I'll do some checking. I do hope you will not disappoint me and tell me you don't know who Marcion is.

Herod died when Jesus was two years old or more, around 4-6 BC, meaning that The death and resurrection of Jesus would have been about forty when He was crucified

So you pick Matthew (~32 - ~36)(*) over Luke (which makes him at the outside ~26-~30). Personally I would go with the latter since it lacks the completely fantastical baby killing by Herod. 'Anyway contradiction seems a bit of an issue in an inspired collection' supposedly one that got rid of the bad books like Gospels of Thomas or Mary say.

After His ascension some forty days later occurred the events of Pentecost where many thousands were converted and so when they returned to their homes the letters would begin to arrive.

You are really overstated the potential mail volume. Interesting the flurry of mail survives not at all.

Paul's letter to the Galatian church was to warn them about false preachers especially about the circumcision people who insisted that members had to be circumcised.

Well a bit more than that. But fair explicitly to warn against people trying to contextualize christian as still following Jewish law. Also of prioritizing his not met Jesus and not telling what some yokel in Jerusalem told me but my (his) personal revelations.

* to get around 40 you are picking the earliest possible birth range and the last year of Pilate's term.

[basics]

conon394,

What makes your arguments rather silly is that the Old Testament was Jesus' Bible then. All his ministry was about what was written therein yet totally misunderstood by the Jews and why it is written that they were either astounded or antagonistic to what He preached. And when we read that His mother kept all these things close to her heart it would not be surprising to think that some others did take notes in writing. So, the Old Testament stands on the grounds that it condemns mankind for its sin with the prophets foretelling that the "seed " of the woman would arise to pay for that sin which happened by The Lord Jesus Christ coming into the world as a man. That you perhaps consider yourself another Marcion cannot and does not alter what is written because the truth of the Gospel will always win out out meddlers.

[conon394]

What makes your arguments rather silly is that the Old Testament was Jesus' Bible then. All his ministry was about what was written therein yet totally misunderstood by the Jews and why it is written that they were either astounded or antagonistic to what He preached. And when we read that His mother kept all these things close to her heart it would not be surprising to think that some others did take notes in writing. So, the Old Testament stands on the grounds that it condemns mankind for its sin with the prophets foretelling that the "seed " of the woman would arise to pay for that sin which happened by The Lord Jesus Christ coming into the world as a man. That you perhaps consider yourself another Marcion cannot and does not alter what is written because the truth of the Gospel will always win out out meddlers.

Err that is a deeply illogical paragraph.

What makes your arguments rather silly is that the Old Testament was Jesus' Bible then

This is true up to a point. We have no particular ideal how much he was master off it nor how he understood and the related Jewish texts and tradition - because he rather decided not to write down anything.

All his ministry was about what was written therein yet totally misunderstood by the Jews and why it is written that they were either astounded or antagonistic to what He preached.

Sort of and more or less what people righting rather at lest 70 years after his death at the earliest thought his ministry was about.

And when we read that His mother kept all these things close to her heart

Citation please

it would not be surprising to think that some others did take notes in writing

Why. What possible reason makes you think that. DO understand how very expensive that concept is at the time and how difficult was? Taking notes the way you imagine is very much a modern concept.

So, the Old Testament stands on the grounds that it condemns mankind for its sin

No it does not in the Augustine original sin way you mean.

with the prophets foretelling that the "seed " of the woman would...

No that is the what the clear reading of the Text says

That you perhaps consider yourself another Marcion cannot and does not alter what is written because the truth of the Gospel will always win out out meddlers.

It its pretty clear that I am not. But its odd you accept Paul who required no witness or letters from Mary but just his internal revelations as proof. So why should you be so sure Marcion was not also so inspired. After all he invented the ideal of trying make a canonical version of a new testament. The one you have is a reaction. Perhaps the naysays were simply flooding the market with the half truth and poor belief? Maybe Marcion was truly the inspired one. After all he clearly believed in Paul which should make you happy since that leaves open the path to the personal born again faith you profess. Also not sure on meddlers. After all you are faced with a long and short Mark. Marcion may simply have made the inspired choice the true proper Luke tradition vs the one that survived till now.

You avoided question about which mutually contradictory Synoptic gospel to think is correct on Jesus age Luke or Matthew? I'm if you rejected say Thomas as not inspired for reasons I suspect you can't easily describe, at least minimized issues down to just two. But you would inspired works could at least match on that fact. So why do favor the one with mythical child slaughter over the more credible one?

Oh and you failed to answer which John you think wrote John.

[basics]

conon394,

Peter writes that interpretation of the Scriptures can only be seen through the work of the Holy Spirit and to whom He gives that inspiration. Therefore, all the books that are in the Bible will only become clear whenever He opens the mind of a person seeking the truth of what's written therein. Clearly you are not in that category as we find from our discussions, why? Because your heart is set against believeing in good faith what is written. I once was just as befuddled as you yet God with Grace fell on me to change my heart and my knowledge of Him. It took forty years of my life before that happened yet when I look back through my life's journey I can see now that God had protected me from myself till I reached the point when He decided to change my direction and my beliefs for which I give Him all the honour and praise I can. Clearly no matter what I say in answer to your questions will never be good enough for you but then I do have a Saviour and loving God, do you?