The Tension of Faith

'We' don't. We tend to suppose the mundane documents are more reliable than the fantastic - but we definitely don't have faith that they are accurate without further evidence.So if we had a document that suggested wine was purchased by the house of Caligula - we can believe that. It is consistent with other evidence (people bought wine, the Julio-Claudian family was wealthy, people recorded transactions....). If we found a document that claimed Caligula was the God, the Father (Deus Pater - Jupiter) - we'd probably not have faith in that document's accuracy. 4 people. And in fact, we know there were many others. They differ in important facts to the point of contradiction. 3 of them are clearly drawing from the same source material (or two of them are drawing from the third). The Gospels are clearly biased - written by those who are trying to persuade, not just report. Irrelevant. It wasn't like mass production happened, there is no reason to suppose that the texts were written anywhere near where the supposed witnesses lived. Most of the witnesses are unlikely to be able to read Greek. There is no evidence that there was anything *to* witness - and the text is vague enough about time and location to mean nobody could say 'I was there at that time and that didn't happen' - and even if they did - who would record that, and copy that recording over and over again?Also - of the events that are described which we would expect large numbers of witnesses to be able to verify - they don't. No census where people returned to where they born is recorded, no traditional public pardoning of criminals at Passover, no dead bodies walking around, no record of a tumult at the temple. The maji/wisemen's records didn't survive. Nothing from Herod or Pilate (and one wonders who witnessed these conversations and spoke of them later?)

But it does say that we don't simply have faith in something, fantastic or mundane. Which is what I was saying. There is a lot of things that biased reporters say to 'big up' their claims to their or other's authority and we rightly treat them with a pinch of salt. That isn't disagreeing with me. The Gospels were not written by the disciples, they were written by people attempting to persuade. By making the disciples less than perfect they make it easier to show how great Jesus us - a method of persuasion when trying to market Jesus as awesome. Having an enemy is also persuasive. Just look at modern day extremist literature - they present people who have the power to have them killed very negatively too. That hardly speaks to its truth - it's a standard technique to unite by constructing a narrative of a common enemy - often Jewish religious authorities.The disciples are regularly depicted as being dumb, serving as a narrative hook for Jesus to provide more exposition. Much like Socrates' opponents were convenient to Socrates making his points (or rather, Plato). I think the contradictions are more significant than witness accounts of a car accident. I actually looked at car accident witness statements as part of my living as when I worked in motor insurance. So let's look at a relatively mundane event - the healing of the mother-in-law.In Matthew 8 - the event takes place in Peter's home and it's Peter's mother-in-law
But Mark 1 and Luke 4 describe it happening in Simon's home and it was Simon's mother-in-law.If I had only two witnesses and they disagreed with who was driving a car - both accounts would be thrown out. With three - all accounts are suspect, but we'd side with the two that do agree normally.But it's not just the differences - ironically the similarities are a problem too. If three witnesses describe the same event too closely - one must suspect they have either copied from another - tainting the credibility of all three, or they've copied from a common source doing likewise.Matthew 9: "As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, Follow me. And he got up and followed him. And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? But when he heard this, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.Mark 2: "As {Jesus} was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, Follow me. And he got up and followed him. And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples--for there were many who followed him. When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? When Jesus heard this, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.Luke gives an account very very similar to Mark.So they cannot be said to be independent sources. At best we have the synoptic gospels and John. And the differences between them can be pretty large. I think we can agree that agreement this broad was one of the criterion for them being included in the Bible. It doesn't matter. It remains uncorroborated from named witnesses, especially those who are not biased towards selling Jesus as awesome. There are several 7th Century references to Muhammed from non-Muslim sources which is a good start when arguing for him actually existing and being involved in the events discussed by those texts.What does matter is that certain major events are unique to the Gospels - despite affecting more than the cast of the Gospels. The pardoning of criminals at Passover, the walking dead, the census rules of returning to one's birth home etc etc. These are narratively useful conceits - but there is no external evidence of them happening. Indeed - some sixty years after Jesus was alive Josephus may have mentioned that there was a man with a common name of Yeshua who was referred to by some as 'the anointed one'. As you say, it tells us very little.In conclusion we don't have 4 sources and we don't have any grounds to accept the credibility of any of them on any of the important points.

There is evidence in other religions that just isn't there in Christianity. And if the miracles in the Quran or Hadith happened as described is that evidence? Would the Quran miracle be evidence of Allah's divinity and power over the heavens? So faith comes first, then the things you have faith in are evidence? Well there are the miracles in Islam. The miracles in Buddhism:

quote:

---

he appears and vanishes; he goes unhindered through a wall, through an enclosure, through a mountain, as though through space; he dives in and out of the earth as though it were water; he walks on water without sinking as though it were earth; seated cross-legged, he travels in space like a bird; with his hand he touches and strokes the moon and sun so powerful and mighty; he wields bodily mastery even as far as the Brahma-world

---

There are miracles all over the place in Hinduism - Lakshmi showering the poor with gold coins as a reward for selflessness after a prayer was issued. Krishna rescued 16,000 women from hell and married them all and simultaneously lived with them all in different houses so as to preserve their honour in the society they were in. Sri Padmapadacharya walked on water, Adi Shankara drank molten iron (and didn't die) to teach his followers the folly of copying all of his actions.... For Buddhists there is salvation in the form of Nirvana. The Buddha shows the path to escape from the cycle of suffering and karma. Likewise, Hinduism has moksha. They often call them Naraka. In Chinese religion they are Diyu - ruled by the Yama Kings. There are frozen places, boiling places - mountains of knives you might be thrown off.... Seriously, it's only as long as the book of Genesis. I have audiobook version of it if your eyes can't take it. I linked to 54 above - where the Noah story and the Lot situation are quickly recounted as proof of God's character. But if those other religions are true, then their religious claims must also work as evidence.... What about the idea that educated and intelligent men invented those mere fishermen etc as characters? Seems likely that someone might have the objective of writing about another person's actions to persuade people of their reality and power. Certainly we see that in other texts, especially religious ones. Sometimes people even write about themselves that way too.

quote:

---

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

​

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of Sippara; who clothed the gravestones of Malkat with green; who made E-babbar great, which is like the heavens, the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed E-babbar, with Shamash as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk, who brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of E-anna, and perfected the beauty of Anu and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the scattered inhabitants of Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach; the protecting king of the city, brother of the god Zamama; who firmly founded the farms of Kish, crowned E-me-te-ursag with glory, redoubled the great holy treasures of Nana, managed the temple of Harsag-kalama; the grave of the enemy, whose help brought about the victory; who increased the power of Cuthah; made all glorious in E-shidlam, the black steer, who gored the enemy; beloved of the god Nebo, who rejoiced the inhabitants of Borsippa, the Sublime; who is indefatigable for E-zida; the divine king of the city; the White, Wise; who broadened the fields of Dilbat, who heaped up the harvests for Urash; the Mighty, the lord to whom come scepter and crown, with which he clothes himself; the Elect of Ma-ma; who fixed the temple bounds of Kesh, who made rich the holy feasts of Nin-tu; the provident, solicitous, who provided food and drink for Lagash and Girsu, who provided large sacrificial offerings for the temple of Ningirsu; who captured the enemy, the Elect of the oracle who fulfilled the prediction of Hallab, who rejoiced the heart of Anunit; the pure prince, whose prayer is accepted by Adad; who satisfied the heart of Adad, the warrior, in Karkar, who restored the vessels for worship in E-ud-gal-gal; the king who granted life to the city of Adab; the guide of E-mach; the princely king of the city, the irresistible warrior, who granted life to the inhabitants of Mashkanshabri, and brought abundance to the temple of Shidlam; the White, Potent, who penetrated the secret cave of the bandits, saved the inhabitants of Malka from misfortune, and fixed their home fast in wealth; who established pure sacrificial gifts for Ea and Dam-gal-nun-na, who made his kingdom everlastingly great; the princely king of the city, who subjected the districts on the Ud-kib-nun-na Canal to the sway of Dagon, his Creator; who spared the inhabitants of Mera and Tutul; the sublime prince, who makes the face of Ninni shine; who presents holy meals to the divinity of Nin-a-zu, who cared for its inhabitants in their need, provided a portion for them in Babylon in peace; the shepherd of the oppressed and of the slaves; whose deeds find favor before Anunit, who provided for Anunit in the temple of Dumash in the suburb of Agade; who recognizes the right, who rules by law; who gave back to the city of Ashur its protecting god; who let the name of Ishtar of Nineveh remain in E-mish-mish; the Sublime, who humbles himself before the great gods; successor of Sumula-il; the mighty son of Sin-muballit; the royal scion of Eternity; the mighty monarch, the sun of Babylon, whose rays shed light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the king, obeyed by the four quarters of the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I.

​

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

---

That's from a legal document, not even a religious text. Looks like a pretty blatant attempt to persuade people of the power, abilities and majesty of Hammurabi. Anyway, the takeaway here is that evidence should be something that indicates something is true. You can't say, 'if the claim is true, that is evidence that the claim is true' in any reasonable fashion. You have faith the claim is true. You can say that testimony is evidence of the truth of the claim. The strength of that evidence is open to debate, and there are many contradictory testimonies that people have made regarding the nature of gods, the afterlife etc.You have faith in the testimony in the Bible. You don't have corroborating evidence for that testimony. You only have the testimony and your faith in it.If a witness stood up and said you were a murderer, you might argue that technically that is evidence you are a murderer - but you'd also say people would have to be gullible to believe it without corroboration. That witness may have people that accept the testimony on faith. They, for whatever reason, trust the witness. But they don't have anything beyond their faith in the testimony. The testimony is the evidence - and its weak - and should be considered with skepticism without corroboration.Now those people that trust the witness - they probably have good reasons. They've known them for years, they're not ones to invent lies or nonsense, spin stories. They've known this witness to have been honest - even to their own detriment on a number of occasions etc.But nobody has reason to trust the Gospel writers - or indeed any of the authors of the books, letters etc in the Bible. For the most part, we don't know who they are, why they took pains to write those words, and whether there was any incentive other than recording truth for them to do it. Writing was not a cheap art - somebody likely compensated them for their works. Why would anyone pay? Maybe it strengthened their hold over a religious community whose tithes were someone's livelihood?We don't know. So how can we trust?The fact that many of the books contain a historical narrative isn't cause to trust the authors. That they claim the people and deities they write of have power to save us is not a reason to trust them.So why trust them?There is no reason. And that's what we mean when we say you have Faith and no evidence. You have nothing to justify your faith but your faith.

I already gave you "The Hour has come near, and the moon has split" and that this evidence that God has power over the heavens.Also the Global Flood.

It's the moon. Only it has been split. Not sure what's complicated. Also the Flood, which I believe you are familiar with the details of.It means God can split the moon and flood the earth. He is powerful. It's not tricky. I mean, you could just read the Chapter and see for yourself, what the point is, I suppose, if you don't take my word for it. They are miracles, which was the evidence you put forward. Narratives are another thing entirely. You could read Chapter 26. there is a narrative of a guy called Moses and some Pharaoh, some miracles regarding snakes.

quote:

---

Then We inspired to Moses, "Strike with your staff the sea," and it parted, and each portion was like a great towering mountain...And We saved Moses and those with him, all together. Then We drowned the others. Indeed in that is a sign, but most of them were not to be believers.

---

That's in there too. Is this evidence for Islam then? Are miracles described in texts evidence or not? Can you explain why you trust the Biblical authors. Surely, writing historical narratives cannot be sufficient to earn your trust. Describing miracles cannot be sufficient to justify your faith. So why do you have faith in the truth of the Gospel testimony?

You don't think dividing the moon into two, and then putting it back together is miraculous? I'm not sure I understand your criteria. Funny thing is - the Quran prophesied your reaction:

quote:

---

The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]. And if they see a miracle, they turn away and say, "Passing magic." And they denied and followed their inclinations.

---

It doesn't matter if they are 'believable'. You said "If Jesus performed the miracles John describes ...it certainly is evidence. "I'm asking 'If God performed the miracles Mohammed described, is that also evidence?' Believability is not relevant.I should also point out that Noah's flood and Moses' parting of the red sea are described. Are these not believable? I'm confused as to what you are trying to communicate here.Can you explain why you trust the Biblical authors. Surely, writing historical narratives cannot be sufficient to earn your trust. Describing miracles cannot be sufficient to justify your faith. So why do you have faith in the truth of the Gospel testimony? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But this isn't science or law - it's history. Written documents are evidence in history. Having a rough notion of your age and nationality I know you almost certainly covered 'primary sources' and 'secondary sources' as part of your pre-GCSE history lessons.Much of the details of history as we know it, come from written sources. The broad strokes may be verified with archaeology, but seldom the details.To turn to the Bible - Paul is a primary source for understanding some of the concerns, questions and problems facing some of the early churches. For example:

quote:

---

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.... So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
...
So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together.

​

1 Cor 11

---

I mean we agree that writing something down doesn't make it automatically credible. But it also doesn't make it not evidence. Evidence can lack credibility and still be evidence. Evidence isn't proof - in the scientific sense of the notion rather than mathematical.Historical method - Wikipedia

quote:

---

When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
....
If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
...

​

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

​

Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?
How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?
....
Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
Are there inner contradictions in the document?

---

And so on.

So why did John get attached to this Gospel? My understanding goes like this.The first reference we know of to refer to this Gospel as John's is in the late 2nd Century.At the end of John comes the words:

quote:

---

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

---

Which suggests some group of people wrote the text 'we' based on what they claimed was the testimony of a disciple. The name of the disciple is not given. We just know it is the disciple that Jesus loved. This disciple is NOT Simon Peter - as he often appears in the same accounts as this disciple:

quote:

---

Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved
-John 20:2

---

So the claimed authorship then relies on their being 3 particularly favoured disciples, and Peter can't be one of them leaving James and John. According to the internal logic of the story - James dies pretty early which would call into question his ability to testify/author the book in question. Thus, the argument goes, John is the one.There are other arguments, but that's the kind of evidence provided that the author / principle witness of the Gospel of John is at least intended to be thought of as John by whoever wrote it. The evidence is slim, and requires some tenuous argumentation to get there (the above is really the best I could find - coupled with the fact that other disciples get named but there is a pattern of not naming 'the disciple that Jesus loved' and John doesn't get named anywhere...). Other than relying on 2nd Century scholar's opinions there isn't much to go on.How is this relevant to the discussion?So while a (perhaps significant ) degree of faith is required to say John is the author, it is not without evidence. The evidence may not be sufficient for Percy to have faith in the conclusion, but it is apparently sufficient for many Christians.

Yes. Not 'most'. But many, for sure. It's not a hyper-obscure theological point held by some edge case of Christians. I expect most Christians actually think the Gospel of John is called that because that is what it calls itself right at the top! But I expect it's something that gets covered in plenty of seminaries and schools of divinity and that kind of thing. I don't think the distinction makes a difference to my point. Indeed: the Gospel of John claims at least some of its contents were provided by an eye witness who it is at least implied, is John, but certainly a disciple. If you have faith that this is eye witness testimony, one can understand treating its claims with more credibility than someone who has faith that it is some person(s) unconnected writing a Gospel for financial reasons. Either way, I don't think its coincidence. Either it is a deliberately piece of symbolism constructed by its authors, or it was symbolism constructed by Jesus.A better example might be Jesus' journey to Egypt. Kind of reeks of a tortured narrative to squeeze a "...and out of Egypt I called My son" reference. There's no reason to suppose that if the story is remotely true, this was constructed by Jesus for symbolism. So either it's a coincidence, an author's conceit, or God's hand (which if all the Gospels are totally true would, I suppose, be Jesus' construction....). If we dismiss coincidence, then it's a matter of faith (or lack thereof) in the author as to which way to turn.

Scientific evidence and historical evidence are not always the same. We don't have scientific evidence for the existence of Socrates. We don't have scientific evidence for the last years of Anne Frank. We can apply those standards though. We do apply those standards. You don't think people haven't used source criticism and historical methods on the various things discussed in the Bible I'm sure! It is also evidence regarding the claims that author wrote. How credible we decide that evidence is, varies, as I said.

I expect, however, it would be a large percentage of those Christians that have been exposed to the arguments and evidence for those arguments. I'm not suggesting all, but I haven't heard 'After hearing about why Christians attribute the Gospel of John to John, I lost my faith' a great amount. You 'guessed' right. The fact that this disciple is present for the interaction between Peter and Jesus, is put at the Last Supper and various other scenes suggests more than an implication of being an eyewitness:

quote:

---

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? ... Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things

---

We agree on the credibility of the evidence. But a text that proclaims to be the testimony of an eyewitness is evidence even if we, on examination decidea) The eyewitness is unreliable
and/or
b) The testifier was not actually an eyewtiness I'm not trying to persuade you to agree that John *is* true. I'm just saying how one might go from the evidence for John's authorship to trusting John as a source. The relationship of evidence and faith. There is one, even if you personally don't think the evidence is of such a nature that it can justify the faith - the trust. I did say 'if the story is remotely true' - the conditional was there to avoid this objection. Your view of this is not important. My point here was to say that in the example you provide - the 12 disciples and 12 tribes - there are some possibilities:1) The story is true, but it isn't a coincidence because Jesus deliberately chose 12 as a conscious reflection of the 12 tribes
2) The story is false and the 12 were chosen deliberately by the author for the same reasons.With the Egypt story - Jesus' journey to Egypt is not engineered by Jesus so option 1 in this case is out. So if the story is somewhat true (ie. the history is of a mundane Jewish preacher who had myth erected around him later) - we don't suppose it was a conscious effort by Jesus. He was a babe at the time. So either it was the author's conceit or...God had hand in the arrangement (or coincidence, but we were leaving that theory behind).

So we agree that the discipline we're talking about matters with regards to what should be considered evidence? As I said in Message 655. Although there are no objective sources, just different kinds of bias. Where the story is located is not material - especially if we remember they weren't originally in a book A story can be credible. It being a story doesn't make it low quality in itself. The more it fits narrative structures typical of myth or fiction, the less credible of course. Yes you did say that. That's why I said 'also' as in, in addition to it being evidence that someone authored it, it is also evidence regarding the contents. It's also evidence of Hellenistic Syncretism. In history - eyewitness testimony, claimed eyewitness testimony, and histories that say they are written after interviewing witnesses etc etc., are evidence.The question is, "does the evidence we have support the claim?" - not "is there evidence?" We both agree that many allegations in the Bible would require more evidence than we have to render them credible. But they are evidence, regardless of our view on their credibility.Evidence can be supported with other evidence. If we found Pilate's diary and there was mention of a curious Jewish rebel called Yeshua who claimed to be King of the Jews for whom he felt some sympathy due to his pleasant passivity for and whose crucifixion was the source of consternation followed by his followers claiming post mortem sightings...that'd be supporting evidence for some of the broad strokes of the story. The fact we do not have this supporting evidence doesn't render the original evidence non-evidential, nor would a sudden discovery of such a text suddenly render the Biblical account of the trial, evidential where it was not before. It's evidence, it's just not well supported. It is only supported by other author's who share common biases - and seemed to share unknown source material.

Well I included back in Message 660, if that helps. I don't disagree. Well...yes - that's what this particular argument has been about. I don't see why a religious text cannot be considered evidential. Suspect, sure - but evidential. Evidence doesn't mean 'true', or even 'likely true'. Evidence is some data left behind that we can interpret. The Gospels are this. You interpret the data to mean 'religious texts', that's what the texts are evidence of using your methods. Others assess the data as being more than just 'religious texts' but also 'reliable testimony of historical events'. The Gospel of John *is* the evidence, in this particular case.Is the Code of Hammarabi historical evidence? I say yes. Even if there are a variety of supernatural claims in it, that I don't accept as supported by corroborating evidence. If the Gospel of John had corroborating evidence you'd find whatever was corroborated more plausible (for instance, the existence of Jerusalem). John alone is uncorroborated, further evidence may lend support to it. Just because there isn't corroborating evidence in some situation doesn't mean the original data is not evidence. Again Anne Frank wrote of some specific things for which there is no corroboration, but those things she wrote are still evidence even so.You can also have conflicting evidence. Two things which seem to contradict one another. Really? I have faith in my bank. This is partly to the fact that they have consistently provided my money when asked, the government also provides a guarantee in case the bank does suddenly fail etc etc. The evidence justifies my faith.I have faith in this here bridge. It has stood for fifty years, and I know there are people whose job it is to inspect bridges for safety concerns. I have evidence that leads to faith.I have faith in my wife. If she tells me she met an extraordinary person doing an extraordinary thing, even though I have no corroborating evidence for this marvellous and improbable meeting - I have evidence of the trustworthiness of my wife's reporting and so I have faith her report is accurate.I said it to Faith earlier. If someone claims you murdered another person, you would not only not have faith in them, but you would implore the police/courts/jury to be likewise skeptical. That witnesses' spouse however, may well have faith in their testimony....based on evidence.Christians wouldn't believe what they believe if there was no Bible. They regard the Bible as being reliable enough to justify faith. Their opinion on the trustworthiness of the Bible - the evidence - is what justifies their faith. If they thought the Bible was unreliable to the point of being meaningless...they likely wouldn't be Christian. The point being, that trusting the words of witnesses is a good thing, in John/Jesus' opinion. The witnesses are not direct experience of the resurrection, but they are evidence of it - and the point of the doubting Thomas story is to say 'trust in the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection'. It isn't saying that 'you are blessed if you believe in my resurrection even though you have absolutely no reason to do so. Like the natives in 'America' right at this minute who have no access to any of the reports of my resurrection'. It's just saying 'the witness reports of the disciples is good enough evidence upon which to believe and demonstrating that trust in these good people is a blessed act' That's just option two with an explanation. I didn't include the explanation as I assumed we both know that reflecting the 12 tribes of the Old in the New Testament would be appealing. The same kind of explanation could also be appended to option 1. Right, but I'm talking about the going to Egypt (ie if the story is somewhat true). If Jesus did go to Egypt it wasn't Jesus' choice to do so. Yeah, I have no idea what your point is. If the Egypt story is true, Jesus did not invent it, nor was going to Egypt his idea. If the Egypt story is false, someone invented it. Whether it was Jesus or Judas or whoever - it doesn't matter. Agreed?

OK. Scientific evidence and historical evidence are not always the same. Historical evidence includes partial written documents, usually written by biased parties about political or social phenomena. As I said in Message 655, and reiterated in Message 690. Plato writing about his teacher Socrates supports the existence, teachings and biographical details of Socrates. My position is that written documents are evidence. It supports the claim. Not necessarily sufficiently, but it still supports the claim.When a jury is considering two conflicting witness statements, they weigh the credibility of each witness, and their story in deciding the facts of a case for a legal perspective. Regardless of the juries decision, both witness statements (say the victim's and the alleged perpetrator's) are evidence.When considering Socrates' biographical details we can look at the writings of Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes.You may not think details of Jesus' biography are sufficient to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the truth of those details - or even sufficient to accept their truth on a preponderance of the evidence. But it's still evidence.

quote:

---

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
-- wikipedia

---

You are welcome to use 'evidence' colloquially - to mean 'that which supports something above a certain threshold of confidence based on a certain epistemology' or something. But even weak sauce sources are evidence.If I said "There was a man called Heliophanes in 30AD who bought wine for a whole village" you might well ask 'Where's your evidence of this?'. I'd reply 'I have none'.However, if I said "There was a man called Jesus who was called Christ around the same time period as Heliophanes" and you said "Where's your evidence of this?" I could cite the Gospels, the Epistles and Josephus. You might say "That isn't sufficient" but you'd hopefully also agree I have more evidence for the Jesus claim than for the Heliophanes claim. When you say 'provides evidence for', I'm reading that as 'provides sufficient evidence to justify belief'. And you are right if so, in my opinion. The Bible does not provide sufficient evidence to justify belief in the fantastical claims. But it is evidence regarding those alleged fantastic events. I'd say it was close to zero. It doesn't make it 'not evidence', it makes it 'crap evidence'. If a suspect's best friend provides an alibi, we might argue this evidence is not very persuasive compared to say, being seen and recorded on live TV during the events. They are both still evidence.One gathers all the evidence, even that evidence which alone does not support the claim particularly well, and understand what the totality of the evidence is suggesting. It doesn't mean the weak, or even very weak, evidence is not evidence.

Why? How do you know it isn't true? It sounds like you are weighing the evidence here. On the one hand we have a written testimony. But it conflicts with evidence of science. So you favour the latter. But you are still weighing the evidence. Because John is evidence, its just not good enough to overcome the objections. Yes. If Jesus asked the servants to fill the jars, someone writing that Jesus asked the servants of jars is consistent with that. If Anne Frank wrote that her father asked her mother to fill jars this too would be evidence of this event. So? That doesn't prevent it from be evidence. It just makes it unverifiable evidence. Uncorroborated evidence, you might say. It's actually spelt 𒄩𒄠𒈬𒊏𒁉 Yes.

quote:

---

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

---

How you decide to weigh this evidence may differ from say, an ancient Babylonian. You can see more of such text in the Code discussed in Message 530. Exactly. But that doesn't make a single strand not a strand. It just means it isn't interwoven. To some extent, but other considerations weaken the corroboration - such as the disagreements between John and the Synoptics, and the evidence of a shared source of the synoptics means using them to corroborate one another is questionable. Just because something is evidence, it doesn't mean one has to accept it as true. Sorry to repeat myself.In law, two parties present evidence - the jury decides the facts. I don't accept something as true just because there is some evidence. There are conflicting pieces of evidence, there are pieces of evidence which call into question certain types of other evidence. We are both skeptical of eyewitness evidence, and one reason you have already cited is DNA evidence. The Bible is real world evidence. It exists right here in the real world. Most of history as we know it is derived from studying writing. Yes, the written word isn't scientific evidence. It's historical evidence. It certainly is less persuasive than direct experiential observation. Not really. You are using a definition of faith that means 'without evidence'. That is: 'blind faith'. But that's trying to win the argument by defining yourself right. Faith simply means 'trust'. Trust in certain authors, trust in God - trust where they might not be the kind of justification for that trust that we might have in other areas. But not trust without any justification at all. Also from that page:

quote:

---

Faith is a belief that what is said in the Bible is true based on the eyewitness accounts

---

From wikipedia:

quote:

---

Faith is confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief, in which faith may equate to confidence based on some perceived degree of warrant.

---

Or

quote:

---

hus faith is the outgoing of the wholenature to what it believes to be true, or rather, to Him Who is held to be the Truth. It isthis that Hooker meant when he spoke of faith as including (1) the certainty of evidence,and (2) the certainty of adherence. Faith is not blind, but intelligent
- The Principles of Theology, Griffith-Thomas

---

from the same source;

quote:

---

One witness in the Apostolic Church calls for special attention, the ApostlePaul. He possessed the three essentials of a true witness: intelligence, candour, anddisinterestedness. His conversion and work stand out clearly in regard to his evidence for the Resurrection.

quote:

---

He affirms that within five years
of the crucifixion of Jesus he was taught that
‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again thethird day according to the Scriptures’
That within a very few years of
thetime of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus was, in the mind of at least one
man of education, absolutely irrefutable

---

​

In view, therefore, of St. Paul’s personal testimony to his own conversion, and to his interviews with those whohad seen Christ on earth, with the prominence given to the Resurrection in his teaching,we may rightly argue that he stands out beyond all question as a witness to the Resurrection.

---

What does your belief have to do with whether it is evidence? The only evidence we have for many things is written. You either trust the author, or you do not. Not trusting the author does not make it 'not evidence' it makes it evidence you believe is incredulous or unreliable.