Board index ‹ Miracles

[Sandman]

Is there any proof that Jesus walked on water?

[jimwalton]

Jesus walking on the water is not subject to historical investigation. The only proof we have is to assess whether the disciples were credible witnesses. We are seeing this right now in the confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford has no evidence of his sexual assault, no corroboration, and even faulty memory. All she has is credibility as a witness. She is being taken seriously. And this, as you know, is decades after the alleged incident. Many individuals are giving her narrative credibility not on the basis of object and material evidence but on the credibility of her testimony. It’s no different with the Gospel accounts of Jesus walking on the water. There is no material evidence. We have to assess the credibility of their testimony.

[Lucky]

What makes you think the authors of the gospels are credible? They're all anonymously written. They have contradictions among them. Some of them were written by translators. Some of them were commissioned. None of them were written until decades after Jesus's death.

As a stand alone piece of evidence, why are these books even considered good evidence on their own?

[jimwalton]

There are many reasons I consider the authors of the Gospels to be credible. We use the same criteria for them that we would use in any similar situation.

1. The number of witnesses present. Jesus's ministry was very public, and the number of eyewitnesses to his miracles and teaching is abundant. You'll notice that we have four corroborating accounts of his miracles and teaching (the 4 Gospels), and we have zero accounts claiming the Gospel renditions are false.

2. The willingness of the apostles to suffer and die for what they were teaching: the miracles, teachings, death and especially the resurrection of Jesus. We know for certain about a few of the disciples, and the traditions about the others almost all include suffering and martyrdom. People are not willing to die for something they know is a lie. A conspiracy like the one you might be proposing here doesn't hold together under scrutiny.

3. The confirmable historicity of the Gospel accounts gives the authors credibility.

4. The authors come across as reasonable, thoughtful, moral people, not lunatics or extremist crackpots.

5. The apostles had a reputation in the culture that speaks to the historicity of the accounts.

But my point was more to the fact of comparing the Kavanaugh "trial" to the miracle story. With Dr. Christine Ford, she is believed without any evidence on the sheer perceived credibility of her as a person. Why does she get a pass while the Gospel authors are derided?

> They're all anonymously written.

Technically this is true, but there is unanimous attribution of them in their contemporary world to the traditional authors. There is no competing theory as to who wrote them. And there are lists of reasons to subscribe to the traditional authors. The argument for the traditional authors is stronger than the argument against them.

> They have contradictions among them

No contradictions per se, but the license that an oral rhetorical culture grants to the story-teller.

> Some of them were written by translators

This is patently untrue. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

> Some of them were commissioned.

Do you have any evidence of this assertion? I think not.

> None of them were written until decades after Jesus's death

Decades is nothing. It's like saying we can't get reliable information about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky because it was decades ago. That's nonsense. Besides, as was the point of my post, Dr. Ford claims this sexual abuse happened 36 years ago, and yet she is believed. Do the decades rot the mind, or can we consider that important and corroboratable events from decades ago can have merit?

> As a stand alone piece of evidence, why are these books even considered good evidence on their own?

Their confirmable historicity, their knowledge of the subject matter, their reasonable arguments and structure that betray an intelligent author, etc. Why, I might ask in return, are they considered fabrications?

[Lucky]

> The number of witnesses present.

Four?

> The willingness of the apostles to suffer and die for what they were teaching

Lots of people died for hearsay.

> The confirmable historicity of the Gospel accounts gives the authors credibility.

Like what?

> The authors come across as reasonable, thoughtful, moral people, not lunatics or extremist crackpots.

Opinion.

> The apostles had a reputation in the culture that speaks to the historicity of the accounts.

I don't even know what this means. So on the one hand they were tortured for their beliefs. On other other they have a good reputation that permeates the culture? Makes no sense. Or are you trying to say that the gospels had culture written into them that was consistent with the writers of the time.

> There is no competing theory as to who wrote them. And there are lists of reasons to subscribe to the traditional authors. The argument for the traditional authors is stronger than the argument against them.

This is like you having an entire argument with yourself. First you say it's unanimous. Then you say there is no competing theory. Then you say the theory for the traditional authors is stronger. Which is it?

> No contradictions per se, but the license that an oral rhetorical culture grants to the story-teller.

That's funny. The whole thing is an oral rhetoric.

> This is patently untrue. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

The gospel of Mark.

> Do you have any evidence of this assertion? I think not.

The gospel of Luke may have been commissioned by Theophilus.

> Decades is nothing.

Yes they do. You are being ridiculous. Of course the decades of time hurt the testimony of Lewinsky and Ford.

> Their confirmable historicity, their knowledge of the subject matter, their reasonable arguments and structure that betray an intelligent author, etc.

Okay, why?

> Why, I might ask in return, are they considered fabrications?

What an intensely backwards thing to do. I ask you why you think these books should be trusted, and you tell me that they should be trusted. Then you ask me why they shouldn't? The classic "I'll answer your question with a question?" approach. I'm not the one who believes this stuff. You are. I'm sure you don't believe because you did immense research into all religions and you just organically came to the conclusion that Christianity has the best proof. I'm sure you were just taught this stuff first, and then, after you believed all of it, you started looking for the apologetic answer.

[jimwalton]

> "The number of witnesses present." Four?

Come come now.

* The feeding of the 5,000: 5,000 + witnesses
* The feeding of the 4,000: 4,000 + witnesses
* Walking on the water: 12 witnesses
* Healing the sick: often dozens if not hundreds of witnesses
* The resurrection: 500 + witnesses
* healing the paralytic: dozens of witnesses

Etc. Jesus's ministry was very public.

> Lots of people died for hearsay.

This is different. C'mon, you have to be realistic here. There's a qualitative distinction between those who die for hearsay and those who stand before crowd after crowd claiming that an impossible and ridiculous thing happened: the resurrection. And then when pressed to recant, they refuse. This is not mere hearsay, but a grounded conviction about truth.

> "The confirmable historicity of the Gospel accounts..." Like what?

Oh my. I had assumed you had read the Gospels.

* Lk. 1.5: the priestly division of Abijah. Confirmed.
* Lk. 1.9: Zecharaiah chosen by lot. This is confirmably how they did things.
* Lk. 1.10: Pray-ers outside during the burning of incense. This is confirmably how they did things.
* Lk. 1.57ff.: John the Baptist is corroborated and confirmed from extrabiblical sources
* Lk. 2.1: Census by Caesar. There were censuses every 14 years. We know of the one in AD 6, so that puts another one in about 8 BC, right on time for Jesus's birth.
* Lk. 2.2: There is much debate about Quirinius, but it's resolvable to the level of possibility.
* Lk. 2.3: Everyone to certain town to register. This is confirmably how they did things.
* Lk. 2.15: Circumcision and naming the child on the 8th day. This is confirmably how they did things.
* Mt. 2.16-17: Herod's vicious slaughter is in keeping with what we know of his personality and practices.
* That Jesus was a miracle worker is confirmed by a few extrabiblical sources.
* The crucifixion of Jesus is confirmed by extrabiblical sources.

The fact is that the Gospel accounts give an accurate rendering of the culture, the religion, the people of Palestine and their attitudes and practices, geography, and worldview of the day. We have no reason or evidence to doubt the credibility of the Gospels.

> "The authors come across as reasonable, thoughtful, moral people, not lunatics or extremist crackpots." Opinion.

Not opinion but rather analysis. Analysis of authorial style and intent reveals the authors of the Gospels to have been intelligent, reasonable, sincere, moral men. The burden of proof would be on you to give evidence that they were malicious, mentally ill, insincere or otherwise inaccurate authors.

> I don't even know what this means. So on the one hand they were tortured for their beliefs. On other other they have a good reputation that permeates the culture?

What I mean is that these writings were never considered to be the work of deranged people.

> First you say it's unanimous. Then you say there is no competing theory. Then you say the theory for the traditional authors is stronger. Which is it?

It's all 3.

* It is the unanimous testimony of the ancient world that the authors of the Gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
* No other author is suggested in the ancient world for these books. There is no competing theory about who wrote them.
* It is in our modern era that alternate theories have arisen. But an analysis of the evidence and information available shows that the case for traditional authorship is stronger than the case against it.

> The Gospel of Mark.

You're claiming that there's evidence that Mark was written by a translator. (And, by the way, you claimed that more than one were written by a translator.) Let's see your evidence.

Mark was a Palestinian Jew, a Jerusalem resident, seemingly writing for a Gentile audience. (It is believe he wrote from Rome in the late 50s). It makes perfect sense that he translated some of Jesus's Aramaic terms for his audience. What evidence do you have that Mark was written by a translator?

> "Decades is nothing." Yes they do. You are being ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Are you claiming we can no longer get reliable information about the Vietnam War? Nixon's resignation? The Reagan era? Of course we can. This is easy. We can even get accurate information about WWII, the Civil War, and even the Revolution, about the framing of the Constitution and the Continental Congress. My goodness. The Clinton era is simple.

> Okay, why?

* Attention to detail
* Eyewitness details
* Historical accuracy
* Logical structure to the books to make a particular case
* Logical reasoning in the events chosen to make a particular case. For instance, John's is "So that you believe."
* Independence as authors, arranging and emphasizing the material to present a rational argument.

> What an intensely backwards thing to do. I ask you why you think these books should be trusted, and you tell me that they should be trusted. Then you ask me why they shouldn't?

I just get tired of giving evidence after evidence about the text, and no one from the other side ever gives a shred of evidence to support their assertions. Even in rebuttal no one ever presents substantiation for their position. It just gets wearisome, that's all.

Why are the books considered good evidence on their own?

* Luke is widely regarded as a careful and accurate historian. I have studied the Gospel of Luke verse by verse and have found his accuracy to be in the vicinity of 99%. (The other 1% is debated and as of yet unresolved.)
* Luke's writing betrays a scholar author. His Greek is impeccable, and his terminology shows he was an educated man.
* Luke prefaces his work by claiming careful research, not simply emotional or fictional thinking.
* Luke's writing style shows that he considers himself to be writing history, not fiction or mythology.
* Matthew's Gospel carefully traces several themes as he makes his case. These are not the writings of a deranged person. (For comparison, read the Qur'an, which reads like the graffiti of a wandering mind.)
* Matthew's Gospel is framed around five major discourses and the commentary on those discourses, consistently portraying a particular thesis about Jesus.
* Matthew's Gospel doesn't bear any characteristics of fiction or mythology, but rather a careful tracing of historical sequences. (For a contrast, read Greek mythology.)
* Matthew is filled with spot-on accurate references to Judaism at the time, as well as other historical markers. He shows that he is intending to write an accurate historical account.
* Mark's Gospel is a masterpiece of simplicity and conciseness. He arranges his material to trace several themes with consistency and accuracy. He gives us no reason to doubt what he has written.
* John's Gospel is the one most filled with eyewitness details. It's one thing to say "Jesus did a miracle." It's another to say it was 9:00 at night, on the Mount of Olives, a group of soldiers was there, the victim's name was Malchus, and he was the servant of the high priest. John is begging us to fact-check for credibility.

So, let me see your case in rebuttal. Why do you consider the Gospels to be fabrications? Usually the answer is "the miracles," and we can talk about that if you want. But there must be more to your case than "miracles." I'd sincerely like to see your case. Honestly.

[Lucky]

I started writing this, and I'm noticing some themes.

First, you don't know what an eye witness is. You do not have 5k+ witnesses of the bible. You have four. You have four eye witness accounts. In those accounts they list thousands of other people, and if they were alive today we'd ask them, but they're not. So you have four. Not to mention, these were written decades apart. This means that they would have had a chance to read the first book. So in reality, you may only have one person who kept good records, and 3 other people who could have paraphrased the same stuff.

Second, conviction to a belief is not impressive or convincing. Lots of Christians died without even meeting Jesus.

Third, regardless of how true the history may be, that's not proof of anything other than perhaps that it was old. It says nothing about the divinity of Christ. Furthermore, this is history. People could easily have known about this stuff while writing the book because... it was history.

> It is in our modern era that alternate theories have arisen. But an analysis of the evidence and information available shows that the case for traditional authorship is stronger than the case against it.

There was a time when people were killed for doing this. I'll bet there weren't a lot of people doing this because they'd be killed.... for doing this.

> You're claiming that there's evidence that Mark was written by a translator.

Sorry. I misspoke. Transcribed. They were transcribed by Mark, who wasn't an apostle. So you have 3 eye witness accounts, one second hand account. Also one of the books, Matthew, doesn't have a recognized authorship. They attribute it to Matthew, but there's no evidence. So now you have two eye witnesses, one anonymous entry, and one second hand account. One of those two may have been commissioned... and again, they're all decades apart. They'd get to read what everyone had already said.

> Are you claiming we can no longer get reliable information about the Vietnam War? Nixon's resignation? The Reagan era? Of course we can. This is easy. We can even get accurate information about WWII, the Civil War, and even the Revolution, about the framing of the Constitution and the Continental Congress.

You're talking about two completely different times. During the civil war we had around 75% literacy at least. During the Roman empire, it was closer to 5%. So we have tons of accounts of what it was like during the civil war. We have very few accounts of Jesus. In fact, if Jesus did touch thousands, why didn't he have more accounts? If you had 10k people witnessing miracles, then you'd have roughly 500 people who could write about it. Instead you got 4... and someone a century later who wrote a sentence in the dead sea scrolls.

Next, you talk about consistency and writing style as if that was proof. The Marvel comics have that too. What's your point? So what if they're written to sound like non-fiction? People thought War of the Worlds was a serious radio broadcast. You being in awe of how well written they are is not proof of anything.

Finally, nothing you present here would make you doubt the Koran. It's well written. It's consistent. It has details about Arabia at the time. It is not written as fiction or mythology. The person who wrote it isn't considered deranged. It has historical accuracy. The bible, by comparison, reads like the graffiti of a wandering mind. You have no reason or evidence to doubt the Koran. Why don't you believe the Koran? Just to drive the point home. You may have your own opinions about the Koran, but you haven't read the gospel of "Lucky". My book has none of the faults that the bible or the koran has.

[jimwalton]

> First, you don't know what an eye witness is.

Oh, my, are you seriously claiming I don't know what an EYEWITNESS is???? You are talking about the four Gospel accounts, but I am talking (and have been all along) about the people who witnessed Jesus's miracles, which is, after all, the direction and purpose of the conversation.

> In those accounts they list thousands of other people, and if they were alive today we'd ask them, but they're not.

So when the survivors of the Holocaust have all passed away, we can longer consider their testimony as eyewitness accounts?

> Not to mention, these were written decades apart.

Frankly, we don't know when they were written. No one does. Estimates for Mark range from the late 50s to the early 70s, with the 60s being the most popular answer. Estimates for Matthew and Luke range from the early 60s into the 80s, with the 70s being most popular. Estimates for John range from the early 60s to the mid-90s, with the 90s being most popular. To me the evidence is strongest that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written within a decade of each other.

> So in reality, you may only have one person who kept good records, and 3 other people who could have paraphrased the same stuff.

It is fairly well recognized that Matthew and Luke cribbed some material off of Mark, but that John's Gospel (the one written 30 years later) was not. But Matthew and Luke have so much unique material in them that we know for certain they are not just paraphrases of each other. So your case doesn't hold.

> Lots of Christians died without even meeting Jesus.

This is true and gets more true every year. Can't argue against this, for sure.

> Third, regardless of how true the history may be, that's not proof of anything other than perhaps that it was old. It says nothing about the divinity of Christ.

The divinity of Christ is not testable by history or by science. It's a theological claim and conclusion. But since the Gospel writers are so accurate in every other area of their writing, we are remiss to expect that they were intelligent and accurate in one sentence and a loony-bird in the next, and then accurate in the 3rd. That's not how people write.

> There was a time when people were killed for doing this. I'll bet there weren't a lot of people doing this because they'd be killed.... for doing this.

This is true in the Middle Ages, but not in the days of the early church. People were not killed for writing alternate Gospels. In those days Christians were killed for being Christians. The Church was not killing people for heresy until the Catholic Church went wayward, from about AD 1000 to, um, (it's debated as to whether they STILL ARE wayward!).

> Sorry. I misspoke. Transcribed.

Oh, it's very possible that many of the books were transcribed by secretaries. Jeremiah, Peter, and Paul all admit to it (Jer. 36.4; 1 Pet. 5.12; Rom. 16.2). It was common in their culture to use a scribe, just as it was common in the business world for a CEO to use a secretary. That doesn't mean we can disregard the writing as inauthentic.

> They were transcribed by Mark, who wasn't an apostle.

Mark wasn't an apostle, but he did live in Jerusalem during the life of Jesus, his mother was a devoted follower of Jesus (Acts 12.12), and so there are good reasons to assume that Mark may have been an eyewitness to some of Jesus's teaching and activity. Jesus had many loyal followers who were not of the band of 12. But you're right that Mark could not have been an eyewitness to at least some of Jesus's miracles (Mk. 4.35-41). But there's every reason to believe he was friends with the apostles (again, Acts 12, and also 1 peter 5.13). If Mark was like a son to Peter, we could easily rely on his second-hand information (and some first-hand) about what went on during Jesus's ministry.

> They attribute it to Matthew, but there's no evidence.

There is evidence to attribute it to Matthew

* It is unanimously attributed to Matthew by the church fathers: Pantaenus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. This is hard evidence of Matthew's authorship.
* Every manuscript we have, without exception, has the attribution "According to Matthew" on it. This is evidence of Matthew's authorship.
* No other author is ever presented by the early church as having written it. There is no competing theory or attribution. There is no indication from the ancient world that his authorship was doubted.
* Matthew would hardly be the name at the top of the list a forger would add to bring credibility to his book. Maybe Peter or James, Philip or Andrew would garner more attention and respect. We hear almost NOTHING about Matthew in any of the Gospel stories. And then he virtually disappears from history after the resurrection. Why his name, unless quite possibly or plausibly he wrote it?
* It is undeniable that the attributions of all 4 Gospels were unanimously accepted by churches and Christians over a large geographical region by the 2nd century. Because travelers networked early Christian churches throughout the empire, and word traveled among them, early traditions regarding the authorship of the Gospels are probably generally correct.
* The author gives indication that he was a highly-educated Jew who was intimately familiar with the technical aspects of the Jewish law, which fits Matthew's profile.
* Matthew's Gospel has a deep interest in the Mosaic Law and ecclesiastical matters, consistent with a Levite, as Matthew was.
* The level of Greek fits a man who was trilingual, a native Palestinian who regularly does business in Greek, which is what Matthew was.

So there's my evidence. What's your case *against* Matthew?

> Literacy

Literacy was high in 1st-c. Palestine. Jewish culture placed a value on being able to read the Torah. All boys were taught how to read, and so were many girls. Reading and writing were widely practiced by the general populace in Jesus's era in Palestine. We have proof of this high level of literacy:

* The letter for Babatha, and many common documents of normal business
* Minted coins with written messages on them
* Many personal inscriptions on all kinds of articles
* Ossuary inscriptions
* Potsherds with school exercises on them
* Letters of Paul were distributed to churches for reading
* Zechariah wrote on a wax tablet (Lk. 1), and the people were able to read it.
* Jesus was able to read and write
* The Pharisees, chief priests and scribes were literate (Mt. 12.3, 5)
* Graffiti establishes the literacy of even the poorly-educated lower class
* Public, communal reading was widely practiced.

> It's well written. It's consistent.

I'm guessing at this point you have really read the Qur'an. It is neither of these.

> It has details about Arabia at the time.

Where?

> The person who wrote it isn't considered deranged.

This is highly debated. Muhammad is widely recognized to have been an epileptic with leanings characteristic of mental illness. This is not the case with the biblical authors.

> It has historical accuracy.

Where? Have you read the Qur'an?

> The bible, by comparison, reads like the graffiti of a wandering mind.

Hmm. Until the rise of New Atheism in the modern era (about 5% of the population), the Bible was regarded by intellects, scientists, philosophers, as well as the common people, as being worthy of great respect and one of the greatest literary achievements of humanity.

[Lucky]

You are the most unfair apologetic that I have ever encountered. Your method is simply to throw out as much rhetoric as possible in hopes that it makes your claims more believable. I'm just going to focus on what I think is the most important claim you make.

> The divinity of Christ is not testable by history or by science. It's a theological claim and conclusion. But since the Gospel writers are so accurate in every other area of their writing, we are remiss to expect that they were intelligent and accurate in one sentence and a loony-bird in the next, and then accurate in the 3rd. That's not how people write.

So your argument is literally just that these people wrote very well, so you believe them? This is your entire argument. This and the fact that people from those days wrote about historical events from those days.

None of that is proof of Jesus's divinity. In fact, it makes more sense for a divine god to not only write the bible himself, but it makes much more sense for those writings to be prescriptive to the things that would happen in the future, not just to be accurate of the past. For example, every year you hear about some whacko who thinks he has figured out the date of the apocalypse. Just tell us the date or even the year in the book. That'd be an example of a prophecy.

[jimwalton]

The conversation has taken a sudden turn. We have been talking about "Is there any proof that Jesus walked on water?", and then we started talking about the reliability of the Gospel accounts. Now you're chastising me because "none of that is proof of Jesus's divinity." Of course it's not. That is not what we were talking about, nor is Jesus's divinity something that can be proved. It's a theological claim and conclusion based on many factors.

> So your argument is literally just that these people wrote very well, so you believe them?

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that these men, from their writings, can be seen to be intelligent, responsible, sane, and moral men. There is no indication in their writings that they intend to deceive, or that they are writing fiction or mythography.

> This is your entire argument.

Read again. I have claimed as I did above (intelligent, sane, moral, etc.), but also that there were many witnesses to the miracles and the teachings of Jesus, that they were so convinced they were willing to die for it (no one dies for what they know to be a lie), that their accounts are full of accurate historical references, and that they were not known in the culture as wackos. So it's reductionistic to claim that all I said was "they wrote well so we should believe them." That's the straw man fallacy.

> In fact, it makes more sense for a divine god to not only write the bible himself, but it makes much more sense for those writings to be prescriptive to the things that would happen in the future, not just to be accurate of the past.

Interestingly, prophecy forms a larger part of the Bible than any other holy book.

> For example, every year you hear about some whacko who thinks he has figured out the date of the apocalypse.

Yeah, they're wackos, for sure. Jesus says we'll never be able to figure it out like that. We will just be able to perceive the signs of its approach and process.

> You are the most unfair apologetic that I have ever encountered. Your method is simply to throw out as much rhetoric as possible in hopes that it makes your claims more believable.

Sorry you feel this way. You want evidence and so I give it. What I wrote it based in research and study. I don't know where you get this "unfair apologetic" accusation. You want to know when the Gospels were written, so I told you (briefly, of course). Then I corrected a misunderstanding of yours that the early Christians killed off the opposition. It's just not true. then you wanted to know why I believed Matthew wrote Matthew. Why is it illegitimate that I gave you my reasoning?

And you have avoided giving me your case against Matthew. You have avoided giving me your evidence from the Qur'an. And ultimately you have not answered my questions about why you think the Bible is so wild and unreliable.

> Just tell us the date or even the year in the book. That'd be an example of a prophecy.

Can you imagine the chaos in society and in people's actions if we actually knew this?

If you want prophecy, why not the Micah passage about Jesus being born in Bethlehem? What about Isaiah and the prophecy of Jesus's suffering? What about the Psalms' prophecies about Jesus's crucifixion? Why are those chopped liver?