Comment Zero, unless... (Score 2, Informative) 264
Zero, unless I need to make a call to our outsourced I.T. department. In that case I've got about 2 hours of on-hold music to look forward to.
In fact, give me some external source to the New Testament that even talks about some jesus "miracles" please.
From the Babylonian Talmud, we read:
On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu* [= Jesus]. And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days, saying: 'He is going to be stoned, because he practised sorcery [magic with a negative spin?] and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover.
From Josephus we have: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds...
These sources are not without their problems: they are what they are. All historical documents, New Testiment or otherwise, have bias and it needs to be considered in its examination. If you are interested in learning more about the origins and authenticity of the new testiment documents, I suggest reading The Christ Files.
You seem to be hung up on Christianity (and, judging by your posts, an incredibly narrow form of Christianity at that).
Sure, I'm happy to accept that. Broad views are only obtained by surveying a broad population, or an individual who doesn't take a position.
The archaeological evidence states that the texts in the new testament where written between 50 AD and 150 AD. Now, now, seems to me that to someone that supposedly saw so many miracles, the apostles here quite a bunch a lazy guys. Some of them waited more than 100 years to actually write what they saw (they lived quite a long time back then ei?). Besides, these apostles, there were Jews according to the accounts, must have been a very special kind of fishermen. That kind of fisherman that knew how to write Greek (yeah, the new testament was originally Greek in case you don't know). Gosh, I wished we had Roman public education nowadays, even the fisherman would know how to write chinese here in Portugal.
That the earliest documents were written less than two decades after the event is quite remarkable for documents of the antiquity. The culture was agrarian and literacy rates were extremely low by modern standards. The relative relability of spoken testimony would have been of much greater value then than now.
By comparison, the writings of the Buddha were passed on by oral tradition for about 400 years before being written down.
There is evidence to suggest that the earliest creeds were composed within months of the resurrection.
As to how the gospel writers got their message written, some of them were educated and could probably already write. (Matthew and Luke were a tax collector and doctor respectively.) And others found people who could write for them. (Mark wrote on behalf of the fisherman Peter).
P: Both Jesus' allies and detractors were present. The latter had good political reasons for denying the miracles, but they didn't, which suggests maybe they couldn't.
J: This is just silly. Mate, you have an ENTIRE religion that denies the guys miracles, they are called JEWS.
and
P: Many of the writers of the New Testament were so convicted by the things they witnessed, they were willing to be executed on account of their testimonies.
J: Yeah, mate, you mean like nowadays muslins are so convinced about their profit deeds that they are willing to blow themselves and kill innocents all around? Oh, wait, at least those don't claim they actually saw anything they just believe in what they are told and that doesn't make any sense exactly like you.
A comment on both of these responses. There is a difference between the responses of people who were physically present at the events, and those who have received it second hand (or 2000 years later).
In the first instance, the Jewish people at the time would have had to contend with other witnesses who did personally see the miracles. This is not an issue for the present day Jews.
In the second instance, yes, people will martyr themselves based on a belief that they received from someone else. But the first-hand witnesses are in a different basket: not many people would martyr themselves on the basis of a lie they themselves created. (Though there are of course a few wackos that make the exception here).
(Thoughts on evidence in this post)
Conclusion: Science can prove things. (Some things, at any rate). The ancestor post claims the contrary.
But it's also always important to examine the mechanism by which things are being proved/disproved, as in many cases there are hidden assumptions that in turn require proof.
Since nobody ever proved religion to be right, or the existence of any kind of god or any of that stupid stuff, then no, science doesn't have to prove them wrong
Is it that "nobody ever proved" it, or that many people reject the proofs on offer, or that people don't even look for the proofs?
[Prelude: Paralytic man brought to Jesus; Jesus forgives his sins; the nearby officials scoff] Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . .
Now, Jesus uses the miracles to prove who he is, and implicitly proves that God exists. The proof to the witnesses is compelling.
Now, the problem we have today is that we were born in the wrong century to witness the proof, and subsequently also have to prove the veracity of the account. There is much to be said here, but to make a few brief arguments in support:
To those who say that no proofs have been presented, I ask: have you investigated to see what proofs are on offer? If not, you may find it a surprisingly rewarding pursuit. I recommend the book The Case for Christ as a good starting point (its by a journalist who set out as an atheist to disprove Christianity, but ended up a Christian).
But to hold a contrary position without even examining the proof on offer is to exhibit the behavior that is so often being condemned.
You take your religion and I'll take science and we'll see who can build the better shoulder to listen to. I'll take psychology over spirituality any day.
Ah, however your conclusion rests on an unstated assumption: that religion is incorrect.
If the naturalists are right, and we only have this life to worry about, then of course the naturalists have figured out the best way to live an effective life. Indeed the Christians would agree: If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 1 Cor 15:19
But if the Christians are right, and there is an afterlife to contend with, then the shoulder of Jesus suddenly becomes much more attractive.
That would make sense if too many religionists weren't Hell bent on forcing religion back into aspects of culture we've been successfully removing religion from in the first place.
I'm always surprised to hear people objecting to religion trying to influence culture, policy, law, other people. The sting in democracy and free speech is that the people exercising it may not agree with you on how culture should be shaped.
It's worth noting that there are good reasons to cast doubt over C-14 dating. To list a few:
Indeed any generic omnipotent being could stuff around with any measurements anyway it saw fit. However, this tends not to be the style and character of the Christian God. Rather, He only intervenes for specific reasons, and messing up physics experiments or hiding bones to be found, in my mind, would detract from His glory rather than adding to it. John 14:6 says "I am the way, the truth and the life." Christianity makes many claims, and invites examination. Some of them cross into the domain of science.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
