Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries

[revjohn]

In my view, pastors like Rev. John who seem to debunk modern healing miracles should, to be consistent, debunk Gospel miracle traditions as well.

It seems like I debunk modern healing miracles?

From whose perspective? How are we choosing to define debunk?

I don't believe I have debunked any modern healing miracle.

I do believe I have been skeptical about some reports regarding modern healing miracles. Certainly not all.

Those who come with first hand reports I tend to accept. For example, revsdd has recounted a healing miracle. Never once have I questioned his authenticity or his belief. Not having been present at the time I have no other explanation to offer nor do I feel it necessary to invent one.

If you cared to read you would note that I do not deny the bodily resurrection of Christ nor do I pooh-pooh any notion of virgin birth. I embrace the existence of signs and wonders. I do not believe (faith language right?) that miracles are mandatory where the Spirit of God is at work.

Your anecdotes don't inspire me to disbelief they simply fail to compel me to believe that a miracle has happened. And because I don't find your anecdotes to be at all inspirational I don't have any pressing need to even attempt to debunk them. In fact my most noticeable response to your anecdotes is silence.

You make a claim. A claim I can neither prove nor disprove and one which you make no effort to prove or disprove and then, you appear to be offended by the response or lack thereof.

If I was at all interested in your anecdotes of miraculous healing I would surely be asking for far more detail than you actually provide.

My response, in summary to your many anecdotes is best summarized by, "So what?"

And again, as I said before, most of my disbelief does not focus on the content of any anecdote you relay so much as it is rooted in a distrust of you.

 

[chansen]

So IYO, only that which is observable exists?

You have been asking questions like this for a while, but the answer from me hasn't changed: No. People keep finding things we could not previously see, and anyone who says that we'll never discover something new that we can not currently see would be a fool based on history, and probably proven wrong within their lifetime.

Here's the problem for religion: It's also foolish to say what science will discover, or what does exist beyond our ability to see, with nothing to base that hypothesis on except some old stories.

To illustrate that, here's a challenge: Show us something that used to have a scientific explanation, for which there is now a more widely accepted answer from religion.

 

[Luce NDs]

Consider me a wilde louped character that likes to believe in the existence of a lighted mine ... a warm wholly place in the abstract ... perhaps only my isolated imagination as sects are discouraged as two deuces on a mountain side relating physically, mentally as spiritually ... as a 4 -some in words for the iterant ... as il li iterant additive to the literal myth ... a scro owup in the upstanding nature of continuity with some irrational relating of parts ... a sign of the manifest grave thing ... some call it attractive force that is blind ... is that wordy or a pile a chit ... wee bits like wine and bread in a iconic communion?

Few understand the subtle means ... just to keep mortals interest up ... as Et IHCs ... a mystery will do it ... at least until it is unravelled and they one must use your imagination to stir it onwards ... ass NDs is up or AD in some strange tongues create that touche moment ... encouraging some demons to not stop the nib lung ... tis like a ISS or care essence that can cause that BUST 'd sensation ... as the rye thing is laid close by yah ... in a large titter ... and exclamation: " Id on't believe you did that tome ...

 

[Mystic]

Papias (C. 60-125 AD) is famous for his preference for eyewitness testimony ("a living voice") to Jesus over written records. He has directly consulted disciples of the apostles and even a couple of living disciplesof Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion). What he learns is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter's teaching ministry and is therefore based on eyewitness testimony.

Mark is criticised by these disciples for changing the sequence of events in Jesus' life. Mark does not offer a chronolgically historical narration, but rather on how each story fits his thematic purpose. This explains why Jesus' itinerary in Mark makes little sense as a continuous journey. So it is irresponsible for Lavros and his ilk to claim that Mark is poorly informed about Palestininan geography. Mark's role as Peter's assistant and translator is attested in 1 Peter 5:13. Peter was martyred in Rome and the Latanisms in Mark attest Rome as the place of the Gospel's origin. So against Lavros, the Gospel's origin in Rome attests its connection to eyewitness testimony (Peter's). This fits nicely with Justin Martyr's reference in Rome to Mark's Gospel as "his (Peter's) memoirs (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3)."

 

[Luce NDs]

You have been asking questions like this for a while, but the answer from me hasn't changed: No. People keep finding things we could not previously see, and anyone who says that we'll never discover something new that we can not currently see would be a fool based on history, and probably proven wrong within their lifetime.

Here's the problem for religion: It's also foolish to say what science will discover, or what does exist beyond our ability to see, with nothing to base that hypothesis on except some old stories.

To illustrate that, here's a challenge: Show us something that used to have a scientific explanation, for which there is now a more widely accepted answer from religion.

Have you read Can't a' Bury Tale ...?

It can however be rescinded like a belle button ... a hot spot including Innis and outies ...

The Praxis continues Lo Eire ... a deep node ... generally sects out of sight? An hidden icon?

 

[Mystic]

Rev. John, I certainly had the impression that you debunked my testimonies on the grounds, e. g., that it is hard to believe God healed one small child and not another. I'm glad you clarified your position. Indeed, I made my comment to smoke you out. My point still stands: if God can't or won't do it today, there is no good reason to believe He did it "back then."

 

[Luce NDs]

The ethereal god left here as rejected soul by realistic mortals ... and thus such the large stretch as X Pan's is ... god's dark side with apprehension; ankh snow job??

Some reordering and reordering my be required in outer degrees of magnet udes ...

What s an ude? That's too a mystery to be dug up ... prim ally stewed and so upe ... as heated sects ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

... then it is purely subjective.

I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus to provide a foundation for my faith.

As you would.

I'll willingly concede that none of the evidence is absolutely conclusive proof of the evidence for the biblical Jesus. If it were, then, as an open minded person who's open to evidence, I assume you wouldn't be having this debate with us.

If there were, I would undoubtedly be a believer, but as there is none, I must err on the side of sensible.

You'd accept the conclusive proof. But that's not how it works. Faith is ultimately always a subjective experience. I believe in God because when I was about 25, belief in God suddenly started to make sense to me after I had been an atheist to that point in my life.

This is where you lose me. if you had been you would still be. Sadly by that statement alone you have defined who you are.

snip>> -- <<Sure there's "extrabiblical evidence about Jesus" to quote from the title of the thread. I think the extrabiblical evidence is quite compelling. In fact I think the biblical evidence is quite compelling. But evidence didn't lead me to faith. A subjective experience led me to Christ. I can't prove that experience, nor can I recreate it in anyone else's life. It's just good enough for me.

For religious people that is true sadly, it's called confirmation bias.

Merry Christmas, Pavlos Maros.

And a happy one to you.

 

[Luce NDs]

If that is subjective what is the verbal objective of the piles ... or word tha tis ... generally un observed ?

Perhaps John as a man in a black suit?

 

[revsdd]

@Pavlos Maros , I find it strange that you are apparently unable to accept that an atheist can become a theist. Whatever. I also don't really understand why you find it sad that I find the biblical and extrabiblical evidence for Jesus' existence compelling. However, as I said - whatever works for you.

 

[revjohn]

Rev. John, I certainly had the impression that you debunked my testimonies on the grounds, e. g., that it is hard to believe God healed one small child and not another.

I cant speak to your impressions at all. I can only observe that they don't appear to be based on anything approaching fact. For example, me actually debunking (or even attempting to debunk) a miraculous claim.

I'm glad you clarified your position.

I had no need to clarify my position. I did need to correct your impression.

Indeed, I made my comment to smoke you out.

So, on a thread about extra-biblical evidence you needed to smoke out my alleged unbelief in miraculous healings? You couldn't actually respond to my initial post or even ask the question flat out when you first formed the impression when the conversation was actually centered on miraculous healings.

Not finding it hard to wonder why I don't trust you much.

My point still stands: if God can't or won't do it today, there is no good reason to believe He did it "back then."

Well. That would be a valid point if we believed that God was bound to act the same way in every circumstance, that God had no freedom to look at any event and respond to that event from the position of Sovereign God. For example, is God obligated to give you a chocolate bar in answer to your prayers if God gave me a chocolate bar in answer to mine? Is God an unthinking vending machine? Is God not permitted an opportunity to discern between when a response can be yes, no or not at this time? Is God nothing more than a trained dog who performs on command? Is God a predictable being who cannot act in ways other than what we mere mortals can discern and dictate?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Papias (C. 60-125 AD)Snip>> -- <<

Mystic you keep posting these funny rebuttals which are all totally irrelevant, because nobody is disputing that a person called Jesus may have lived. However a magicman Jesus, a biblical Jesus, and Jesus that defies physics. That's the Jesus that needs the evidence. And none of your rebuttals can do that sorry.
As Christopher Hitchens puts it: “One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge.”

 

[revjohn]

Perhaps John as a man in a black suit?

I generally do not wear suits.

They come with that abomination known as a tie (be it a neck or a bow).

 

[Luce NDs]

Does light defy physics ... as it has no volume or defined Maas ... it is all over the place ... as in Laplace Transform ... ill defined and understood by common folk ... quite close to metaphors ... excessively intransigent incarnations ... so as to maintain the not knowing environment about us ... and so it was ... due to mostly ...po'ly misunderstood po' Et Hicks ...

It is simply easier to tell those that don't believe in soul and spirit (metaphysics) a myth about those intransigent matters of chaotic concern ... thus ghost-like stirrings as everything that isn't has fits of hooters ... a bust 've haute couture ... happens on stage ... ask the celebrities ... accidental exposure as the boob lies there?

 

[Waterfall]

Mystic you keep posting these funny rebuttals which are all totally irrelevant, because nobody is disputing that a person called Jesus may have lived. However a magicman Jesus, a biblical Jesus, and Jesus that defies physics. That's the Jesus that needs the evidence. And none of your rebuttals can do that sorry.
As Christopher Hitchens puts it: “One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge.”

Human prehistory? Are we talking about the same people that lived amongst the creators of the pyramids, in a time when the pythagaren theory and the number 0 was known? Along with the aqua ducts and obelisks, etc...., some of the greatest and most complex architecture ever built....are these the backward people you are referring to? Models for government that are still admired today?Not to mention philosophers that are still taught today and might I add, the ones that were atheist had a more compelling argument than I have ever seen on this board from anyone.

 

[Luce NDs]

I generally do not wear suits.

They come with that abomination known as a tie (be it a neck or a bow).

Are you telling me you're tiered of fitting an image of properly attired?

 

[Luce NDs]

Human prehistory? Are we talking about the same people that lived amongst the creators of the pyramids, in a time when the pythagaren theory and the number 0 was known? Not to mention the aqua ducts, some of the greatest and most complex architecture ever built....are these the backward people you are referring to? Not to mention philosophers that are still used today and might I add, the ones that were atheist had a more compelling argument than I have ever seen on this board from anyone.

If the present denies the past would such a devoid cognizance have a future with the present as given loss? Luce ND ed or edified as stirred into Eris ...? Eddie KISS me gutte night I need rest from this other chaos ... some gothe would be appreciated as a medium of dreams ... thus the black out ... as any dense duff's would attribute 2 ...

Michael when in Gabriel's pool ... without oars ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

@Pavlos Maros , I find it strange that you are apparently unable to accept that an atheist can become a theist.

We are all born tabula raza " a blank slate" so technically we are all atheist at birth. However that's not what you're asking. What you are asking me to believe is that someone who I assume prior to being religious was using Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency in there everyday life, suddenly discarded all that and became religious, sorry that's not sensible.

I also don't really understand why you find it sad that I find the biblical and extrabiblical evidence for Jesus' existence compelling.

Because! Rather than use your intellect, you throw it out the window, that to me is sad and a waste of a life but each to there own.

 

[revjohn]

Are you telling me you're tiered of fitting an image of properly attired?

Not really. More explaining why it is difficult to find an image of me properly attired.

I did rock a tux once. A lot of fuss and bother for that particular outfit.

 

[Waterfall]

To illustrate that, here's a challenge: Show us something that used to have a scientific explanation, for which there is now a more widely accepted answer from religion.

Science has always created powerful weapons in response to our enemies. Nuclear bombs were the icing on the cake.
Jesus has always known this wasn't the answer. "Do not repay evil with evil" and love one another.